Editorial Notice on Origen's Commentary on John

ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, TOME ONE

PREFACE

^A 1. Just as the people who were once called the people of God were divided into twelve tribes and the Levitical order, both honoring the other tribes and also worshipping God with many priestly and Levitical orders; so, in my judgment, whoever is the people of Christ according to the inner man of the heart—namely, a Jew in secret, and circumcised in spirit—has the properties of those very tribes, and that more sacredly, as we can learn more openly from John in the Apocalypse, since the other prophets did not keep silent to those who know how to hear such things. Thus John says: And I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the seal of the living God, and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to harm the earth and the sea, saying: Do not harm the earth, and the sea, nor the trees, until we seal the servants of our God on their foreheads. And I heard the number of the sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the children of Israel. From the tribe of Judah twelve thousand sealed; from the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand. And when he had made the division of the other tribes ^B, the tribe of Dan being omitted, he subsequently adds after many things: And I saw, and behold the Lamb standing upon Mount Sion, and with him one hundred and forty-four thousand having his name, and the name of his Father written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder. And I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps, and they sang as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four animals, and the elders, and no one could say the song, except those one hundred and forty-four thousand, who were bought from the earth. These are they who were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever...

^A he goes. These were bought from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb, and in their mouth was found no guile. For they are without spot. Now, that these things are said in John about those who have believed in Christ, who themselves are also from the tribes, even if their bodily lineage does not seem to be referred to the seed of the patriarchs, we can gather in this manner: Do not, he says 21, harm the earth, and the sea, nor the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads. And I heard the number of the sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the children of Israel.

2. That, therefore, they are sealed from every tribe of the children ^B of Israel on their foreheads, those are one hundred and forty-four thousand in number, which one hundred and forty-four thousand, since they are virgins, and have not been defiled with women, are said in the following passages in John to have the name of the Lamb and of his Father written on their foreheads. What other seal, therefore, could be impressed on their foreheads than the name of the Lamb and the name of his Father, since in both places their foreheads are said to contain, now indeed a seal, now indeed the letters of the name of the Lamb and the name of his Father? Furthermore, if those who are from the tribes are the same as the virgins, as we showed before, and few are those from Israel according to the flesh who believe, so that perhaps one might dare to say that not even the number of one hundred and forty ^C four thousand is completed from the believers who are from Israel according to the flesh, it is clear that those who from the Gentiles have adhered to the divine Word constitute those one hundred and forty-four thousand of those who have not been defiled with women; so that he who says that the firstfruits of each tribe are the virgins of that tribe does not wander from the truth. For it is added 22: These were bought from among men, the firstfruits to God, and to the Lamb, and in their mouth was found no lie; for they are irreprehensible. It should not be ignored, however, that the discourse about the one hundred and forty-four thousand virgins receives an anagogical interpretation; but it is superfluous now, and alien to the instituted discussion, to append the testimonies of the prophets, which ^D teach us the same thing about those who have believed from the Gentiles.

3. But what all these things mean, you will say, falling upon these writings, O Ambrose, truly a man of God, and a man in Christ, and who strive with all your might to be spiritual, and no longer a man. Others, indeed, are from

^A tribubus who offer tithes and first fruits to God through the Levites and priests, even though they themselves enjoy no tithes or first fruits. But the Levites and priests, enjoying everything in tithes and first fruits, offer tithes to God through the high priest, and, I suppose, first fruits as well. In the same way, among many of the rest of us who have come to the discipline of Christ, being mostly attentive to the affairs of this life and offering few works to God, there are perhaps those who are like the members of the tribes who have little communion with the priests and support the worshippers of God with only a small contribution. But those who are truly dedicated to the divine Word and sincerely and legitimately persevere in the worship of God alone, may not unfitly be called Levites and priests, according to the difference of their movements and the actions that belong to one or the other. Perhaps, moreover, those who excel the rest of the people of their own age in virtue will be high priests, according to the order of Aaron, and not according to the order of Melchizedek. For if anyone objects to this, thinking that we are impious in applying the name of high priest to men, since Jesus is often prophesied as the great Priest — "For we have," he says, "a great high priest, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God" — the answer must be given to him that the Apostle noted this when he said that the Prophet spoke about Christ: "You are a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, and not according to the order of Aaron." From which we also, having received it, say that men can be high priests according to the order of Aaron, but that the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek belongs to Christ, the Son of God. ^{B C} 4. Since, therefore, our every action is dedicated to God, and because we strive for better things with great zeal, and because we desire to have all the first fruits of the many first fruits—unless we are deceived in thinking this—what other first fruits ought there to be for us, after we have been separated from the mutual company of the body, than to institute a discussion about the Gospel? For one must dare to say that the Gospel is the first fruits of all the Scriptures. From the time, therefore, that we arrived in Alexandria, what other first fruits of our actions, I ask, ought there to have been than the first fruits of the Scriptures? But we must know that first fruits and "first-born" (primitia and πρωτογέννημα) are not the same thing. For after all the fruits are gathered, the ^D first fruits are offered, but the first-born is offered before all the fruits.

^A Proinde, no one would be mistaken if they were to say that of all the Scriptures which are carried and believed to be divine in all the Churches, the Law of Moses is the first-born, and the Gospel is the first fruits; for after all the fruits of the prophets, those which existed up to the Lord Jesus, that perfect Word blossomed forth.

5. ^A But if someone, on account of the interpretation given to the term "first fruits," should object, saying that even after the Gospels there are also carried about the Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles, and that therefore what we handed down above regarding this term—namely, that the Gospel is the first fruits of the entire Scripture—is less true; it must be said that for those who are wise in Christ, and who have indeed perceived utility from these aforementioned Epistles, yet who, in order to merit faith, are in need of the testimonies which are contained in the legal and prophetic writings, the intention is this: that while they declare the apostolic writings to be full of wisdom, credible, and most firmly established, they are by no means similar to those words: "Thus says the Lord Almighty."

^B And for this reason, consider whether or not Paul includes his own Epistles when he says: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful"; and when he says: "I say, not the Lord"; and that saying: "As I ordain in all the Churches"; and likewise: "Such as I suffered at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra," and things similar to these, sometimes written by him even with authority, yet not according to the accurate sincerity of the words which are from divine inspiration. Then it must also be shown that the Old Scripture is not the Gospel, which does not manifest the one who is coming, but foretells and proclaims him; but the entire New Testament is the Gospel, not only saying similarly at the beginning of the Gospel: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world," but also containing various doxologies and teachings of Him through whom the Gospel is the Gospel.

^C Furthermore, if God placed apostles and prophets and evangelists, and pastors and teachers in the Church, when we have accurately examined what the office of the evangelist is, and we have found that it does not always pertain to him to narrate in what manner the Savior healed the man blind from birth, raised the dead, or performed any of the miracles; we shall not hesitate ^D to characterize the evangelist, and in the pr—

^Aonouncing of the word for the purpose of establishing faith concerning the things of Jesus, the writings of the apostles may be called as a Gospel. But as regards the second explanation for the objector who raises the point that, because the Epistles are not entitled "Gospel," we have not done well to call the entire New Testament "Gospel," it must be said that in many places in the Scriptures, when two or more things are known by the same name, the name is applied more properly to one of those things than to the others. For example, the Savior says: "Call no man teacher upon the earth," and yet the Apostle says that teachers have been appointed in the Church. These, then, will not be "teachers" according to the precise meaning of this term, and in the same way, every writing under the name of "Epistles" will not be a "Gospel" when compared to the account of the acts, sufferings, and words of Jesus. Nevertheless, the Gospel is the first-fruits of all Scripture, and we make the first-fruits of all the actions that will be performed according to our desire correspond to the first-fruits ^B of the Scriptures.

6. I think that although there are four Gospels, they are, as it were, the elements of the faith of the Church, out of which elements the whole world, reconciled to God in Christ, consists, just as Paul says: "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself," the sin of which world Jesus took away; for the scripture concerning the world of the Church is written: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." The first-fruits of the Gospels is the Gospel according to John, which you have commanded us, as far as our ability allows, to investigate; it describes the genealogy, and begins from Him who is without genealogy. For Matthew, writing to the Hebrews who were expecting the one who would come from Abraham and David, says: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And Mark, knowing what he is writing, relates the "beginning of the Gospel," perhaps so that we might find the end of it in John, who says that in the beginning the Word was God. And Luke, although he said at the beginning of the Acts: "The former treatise I made of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach," yet he reserves the greater and more perfect discourses concerning ^C Jesus for the one who reclined upon the breast of Jesus. For none of them so purely manifested His divinity as did John, who introduces Him saying: "I am the light of the world; I am the way, and the truth, and the life; I am the resurrection; I am the door; I am the good shepherd"; and in the Apocalypse: "I am Alpha, and the beginning and the end, the first and the

last." We must, therefore, dare to say that the first-fruits of all Scriptures are the Gospels, and the first-fruits of the Gospels are those delivered by John, whose meaning no one can grasp unless he has reclined upon Jesus’ breast and received from Jesus Mary, who becomes his mother as well. Such a one, who is to be another John, must be so formed that, just as John did, he might also be shown to be a Jesus from Jesus. For if, according to those who think soundly concerning her ^A, there is no son of Mary except Jesus, and Jesus says to his mother: "Behold your son," and not "Behold also this one is your son," then it is the same as if he had said: "Behold, this is Jesus whom you brought forth." For everyone who is perfect no longer lives himself, but Christ lives in him. And since Christ lives in him, it is said to Mary regarding him: "Behold your son, Christ."

How great, then, must be the mind we need, in order that we might be able to grasp worthily, from the treasure stored up in the earthen vessels of the humble letter, the Word ^B which is read by all who encounter the text and heard by all who offer their bodily ears to the sensible word that comes through the voice? What else must be said? For he who is to grasp these things accurately and with truth must be able to say: "But we have the mind of Christ, that we may know the things that are given to us by God."

It is possible to be led from those things said by Paul concerning the whole New Testament being the Gospel, when he writes somewhere: "According to my Gospel." For among the writings of Paul, there is no book that is usually called "Gospel." But everything that he preached and said was the Gospel; and what he preached and said, these things he also wrote; therefore, it is gathered from these that his writings are the Gospel. But if the writings of Paul are the Gospel, surely the same must be judged concerning the writings of Peter; and to speak in general, all those things that confirm the advent of Christ himself, and that establish his presence ^C, and that introduce into the souls of those desiring to receive the word of God—the Word standing at the door and knocking and wanting to enter into their souls—are the Gospel.

7. But the time has come to inquire more accurately what the title "Gospel" signifies and why these books have this inscription. Now, therefore, it is time to examine this. ^D The Gospel is, therefore, a discourse containing a report of things which, because they are useful, rightly and deservedly bring joy to the hearer as soon as the things reported have been accepted by him. Nor is such a discourse any less the Gospel, even if it is weighed according to the condition of the hearer; or, the Gospel is a discourse…

which contains the presence of a good thing for anyone who believes, or a discourse declaring that the good thing which was expected is present. And all the definitions ^A previously mentioned by us apply to those books which are inscribed "Gospels"; for each Gospel is a system of tidings useful to him who adds faith, and, provided he does not misinterpret it, it provides benefit, and in accordance with what is reasonable, it gladdens by teaching the salutary advent to men—and on account of men—of the firstborn of all creation, Jesus Christ.

But also that each Gospel is a discourse teaching the advent of the good Father in the Son to those who desire to receive Him, is clear to every believer; that the good thing expected is also promised through these books is not obscure; for almost through the mouth of the whole ^B people, John the Baptist, sending to Jesus, says: "Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?" For Jesus was the good thing expected by the people, concerning whom, because the prophets preached, everyone, even those of the common people who were under the law and the prophets, had their hopes in Him, as the Samaritan woman testifies, saying: "I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ; when He comes, He will tell us all things." But also Simon and Cleopas, conversing with each other concerning all the things that had happened to Jesus Himself, who had risen, not yet knowing that He had been raised from the dead, say: "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem, and have you not known the things that have happened in it in these days?" And when He said, "What things?" they answer, "The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a man ^C who was a prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him up to the condemnation of death, and crucified Him. But we were hoping that it is He who is about to redeem Israel." In addition to these, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, having found his own brother Simon, says: "We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, Christ." And after a few things, Philip, having found Nathanael, says to him: "Him, of whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote, we have found, Jesus the son of Joseph, from Nazareth."

8. But if anyone wishes to contest this first definition, ^D because other things also fall under it which are not inscribed with the title of Gospel, and were to say that the law and the prophetic discourses contain tidings of things which, because they are useful, deservedly bring gladness to the hearer as soon as they have been approved by him, we shall answer that before the advent of Christ, the law and the prophets, inasmuch as He who would reveal the mysteries contained in them had not yet come, did not have the promise of the definition concerning the Gospel; but the Savior, having come and having caused the Gospel to be embodied, perfected it with...

^A everything as if it were a Gospel. Nor would I have used this example pointlessly, for the few... And when... the sons of men, ^B by His divinity having taken away the veil that was upon the law and the prophets, He revealed the divine to all, clearly setting forth to those who wished to become disciples of His wisdom what were the true things in the law of Moses, of which the ancients worshipped but an example and a shadow, and what was the truth of the matters in the histories, which happened to them as typical things: "They were written for our sake, upon whom the ends of the ages have arrived" [1 Cor. x, 11]. Therefore, no one to whom Christ has entered, either in the city of Jerusalem or upon the mountain of the Samaritans, worships God; but having learned that God is spirit, and worshipping Him spiritually in spirit and truth, no longer under figures, he worships the Father and Creator of all. Wherefore, before that Gospel which arose through the advent of Christ, nothing of old things was a Gospel. But the Gospel, which is the New Testament, when it had led us away from the oldness of the letter, illuminated the never-aging newness of the spirit, which properly belongs to the New Testament and is present in all the Scriptures, with the light of knowledge. It was necessary, however, that that which had the effect of making what was in the Old Testament be thought to be a Gospel, be specifically called a Gospel.

9. ^C But it must not be ignored that even before the bodily advent, the advent of Christ was, through understanding, already accomplished for those who were more perfect and not mere children, who were not under pedagogues and guardians, those to whom the intelligible fullness of time had arrived—such as the patriarchs, and Moses that great servant, and the rest of the prophets who contemplated the glory of Christ. And just as before His manifest and bodily advent He had arrived for the perfect, so also after His proclaimed presence, for those who are still children, since they are under guardians and stewards and have not yet reached the fullness of time, certain discourses have arrived as forerunners of Christ, adapted to child-like souls, which are rightly called pedagogues. But the Son Himself, the glorified God the Word, has not yet arrived, waiting, as it were, for men to make a preparation worthy of receiving the divinity of God. ^D And it is necessary to know this also: that as the law contains a shadow of the good things to come, which are manifested by that law which is proclaimed according to truth, so also the Gospel, which is thought by all who encounter it to be understood by everyone, teaches a shadow of the mysteries of Christ. And indeed, what John calls the "eternal Gospel," which could properly be called spiritual, clearly sets before the eyes of those who are prudent and intelligent everything concerning the Son of God Himself, and the mysteries revealed by His words, and the things of which His acts were the enigmas. Consistent with these, it is to be understood that in a way that was in the open...

^A there is a Jew and a circumcised one, and so also a Christian and a baptism. For Paul and Peter, who were beforehand Jews and circumcised in the open, afterwards received from Jesus that they should be such also in the secret, being Jews in the open for the sake of the salvation of many, according to the economy, not only confessing this in words but demonstrating it also through their deeds. The same must be said concerning their Christianity. And just as it is not possible for Paul to benefit those who are Jews according to the flesh, unless, when reason demands it, he circumcise Timothy, and when it is appropriate, he ^B has his head shorn, and makes an offering, and in a word, becomes a Jew to the Jews, so that he may win the Jews; so too, it is not possible for one who is set forward for the benefit of the many to improve those who are being elementarily instructed in the Christianity of the open [note: read as hidden Christianity], and to lead them forward to better and higher things, by means of Christianity in the open alone. Wherefore it is necessary to live as a Christian both spiritually and bodily, and whenever it is necessary to preach the bodily Gospel, saying that those who are fleshly know nothing ^C save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified, this must be done; but when they are found to be perfected in the spirit, and bearing fruit in it, and loving the heavenly wisdom, we must impart to them the Word that has returned from having been made flesh to what it was in the beginning with God.

10. Now, we think we have not spoken in vain while examining these matters concerning the Gospel, as though we were distinguishing the sensible Gospel from the intelligible and spiritual by our conception; for indeed, it is now our task to change the sensible Gospel into the spiritual. For what is the narrative of the sensible ^D if it is not changed into the spiritual? Either it is none at all, or a slight one, and belongs to those of the common sort who have persuaded themselves that they grasp what is meant by the words themselves. But our entire struggle is directed toward attempting to reach the depths of the evangelical sense and to examine the truth that is in it, naked of figures. For of those things that are understood as evangelized in the announcement of good things, the apostles indeed evangelize Jesus; they are said, indeed, as a good thing, to evangelize the resurrection, and the resurrection itself, in a way, is Jesus, as Jesus says: I am the resurrection. Jesus, however, evangelizes to the poor the things that are laid up for the saints, exhorting them to the divine promises. And the divine Scriptures bear witness to those things evangelized by the apostles, and to that which was evangelized by our Savior.

- ^A visions of strength. ^B David, when speaking of the apostles, and perhaps even of the evangelists, says: "The Lord shall give the word to them that preach good tidings with great power." At the same time, he teaches that it is not the composition of words, nor the pronunciation of sounds, nor polished eloquence that prevails in persuading, but the supply of divine power. Wherefore Paul also says somewhere: "I will know, not the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power." And in another place: "And my speech and my preaching were not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power." Bearing witness to this power, Simon and Cleopas say: "Was not our heart burning within us in the way, while he opened to us the Scriptures?" But the apostles, since the measure of power supplied by God to those who preach is excellent, possessed much power according to that which is said by ^C David: "The Lord shall give the word to them that preach good tidings with great power." Furthermore, Isaiah, when he said: "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach good tidings," understanding the apostles' preaching to be mature and made in time and seasonably, as they travel therein who said: "I am the way," praises the feet that walk along the intelligible way of Christ Jesus, and that enter through the door to God. And they who perform the good work of evangelizing—whose feet are beautiful—are indeed evangelizing the Good, namely, Jesus.

11. And let no one marvel if we have explained that Jesus is evangelized by the plural number of goods: ^C for having grasped the things under which the names are placed, and by which the Son of God is named, we shall understand how Jesus is many goods, when these whose feet are beautiful evangelize him. For life is one good, and Jesus is life. Another good is the light of the world, the true light, and the light of men; all of which the Son of God is called. And there is another good, according to our considerations, distinct from life and light, namely, truth. And a fourth good, apart from these, is the way which leads us to these goods. All these things our Savior teaches that he himself is, saying: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." And how is that not a good, for a man, having shaken off the dust and mortality, to rise again, obtaining this from the Lord, according to that in which Jesus himself is the resurrection, who also says: "I am the resurrection"? ^D Furthermore, the door also, through which one enters into supreme blessedness, is a good; and Christ says: "I am the door." But what need is there to speak of wisdom, which God "created in the beginning of his ways for his works," in which the Father delighted, taking pleasure in her multifarious intelligible beauty, which is seen by the intelligible eyes alone, and which calls to love him who contemplates the divine beauty? For wisdom is a good of

^B of God, which those whose feet are beautiful announce along with the aforementioned things. Moreover, the power of God is also numbered as an eighth good for us, which is Christ. Yet we must not pass over in silence that Word who is after the Father of all, God; for this good also is inferior to no other good. Blessed, therefore, are they who have grasped these goods and received them from those whose feet are beautiful and who proclaim them. Yet even if there be some Corinthian, in whose presence Paul affirms that he knows nothing save Jesus Christ, and him crucified, nevertheless, if he has learned to grasp the beginnings of the goods through him who became man for our sake, he becomes a man of God from the man Jesus, and dies to sin by his death. For indeed that one, who died to sin, died once for all; but because of his life, since Jesus is that which lives, whoever becomes conformed to his resurrection lives to God and attains to living to God. And who would hesitate to say that righteousness itself, and sanctification itself, and redemption itself is a good? Those who preach Jesus preach these also, saying that he became for us righteousness from God, and sanctification, and redemption. From these things, therefore, it will be possible to understand those matters written about him, which are beyond numbering, demonstrating how Jesus is a multitude of goods, and to conjecture from those things that are beyond numbering and are written, those things which indeed exist in him, in whom it pleased all the fullness of the Godhead to dwell bodily, yet are not contained by letters. And why do I say "by letters," when even about the whole world John says that not even the world itself, I think, could contain the books that would be written? ^C It is the same thing, therefore, to say that the apostles preach the Savior, and that they preach the goods; for he is the one who received from the good Father that he should be all these goods, so that each one, according to what he grasps, or through what he grasps having received it through Jesus, might attain to the goods. But the apostles, whose feet are beautiful, and their zealous imitators could not have preached the goods had not Jesus first preached them to them himself; just as Isaiah says: "I myself, who speak, am present, as if on the mountains, as the feet of one bringing good tidings of the hearing of peace, as one preaching goods, because I will make your salvation heard, saying to Zion, Your God shall reign." For what are the mountains, upon which he who speaks is present? ^D Let it be granted, however, as some among the multitude of believers who admit of disagreement hold due to rashness, to suppose that the Savior is the God over all; but we are not of such a mind, we who are persuaded by him saying, "The Father who sent me is greater than I."

^A And does he confess, or are those who are not inferior to any of the highest and greatest on earth—they who ought to be sought after by the capable ministers of the New Testament, in order that they may keep the commandment which says: "Go up onto a high mountain, you who bring good tidings to Zion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings to Jerusalem." And it is not to be wondered at if, to those who are about to bring good tidings of good things, Jesus himself brings good tidings of good things, which are nothing other than himself; for the Son of God brings tidings of himself to those who are able to learn of him not through others; provided that he who goes up the mountains and brings good tidings of good things to them, having been discipled by the good Father, who makes his sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sends rain upon the just and the unjust, does not display pride ^B towards the poor in spirit; for he brings good tidings to these also, as he himself testifies, having taken the book of Isaiah and read: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good tidings to the poor, to preach release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind." For having rolled up the book and given it back to the attendant, he sat down; and when the eyes of all were fixed upon him, he said: "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your ears."

12. It is also necessary to know that every good action done towards ^C Jesus is contained in such a Gospel, just as it also contains that excellent action of that woman who, when she had committed and repented of her evil deeds, was able—because of her genuine transition from evils—to pour upon Jesus an ointment of good fragrance, by which action the whole house, and indeed as many as were present there, perceived the fragrance of that ointment; wherefore it is also written: "Wherever this Gospel is preached in all the nations, what she has done will also be spoken of in memory of her." It is clear, moreover, that what is done unto those who have been discipled by him is done unto Jesus. For he shows that those who have received benefits are those who have done them, saying: "What you did to these, you did to me." So that every good deed performed by us toward a neighbor is referred to the Gospel, which is written in the tablets of heaven and read by all who have been deemed worthy of the knowledge of all things; but on the other hand, a part of the Gospel also exists for the accusation of those who have committed ^D sins against Jesus. Indeed, the betrayal of Judas, and the outcry of the impious people, saying: "Take such a one from the earth, and crucify, crucify him," and their mockings, by those who crowned him with thorns, and things similar to these, have been set down in the Gospels. It follows from these things to understand that every betrayer of the disciples of Jesus is reckoned to be a betrayer of Jesus. Therefore, towards the...

Paul ^A who was still persecuting him, Jesus said: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” and “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.” But there are some who possess the thorns with which, while dishonoring Jesus, they crown him—those who, being choked by the cares and wealth and pleasures of life, after receiving the word of God do not bear fruit. Wherefore we must be on guard, lest we too, while being written down as those who crown Jesus with our own thorns, should be read as such by those who learn from the one who is in all things, and by all rational or holy ones, about Jesus: by what ointment he is anointed, and how he is entertained, and glorified, or conversely, how he is dishonored, mocked, and struck. These things have necessarily been said by us, demonstrating how our good deeds, and the sins of those who fail, are set down in the Gospel, being either for eternal life, or for reproach and eternal shame.

15. Since among men there are those honored with the ministry ^B of the evangelists, and Jesus himself evangelizes good things, and evangelizes to the poor, it was not right that those created by God as spirits—the angels, and those who are a flame of fire as ministers of the Father of all—should be deprived of also being evangelists. For this reason, an angel also, having stood before the shepherds, and having caused glory to shine around them, says: “Do not be afraid, for behold, I evangelize to you great joy, which shall be for all the people, that there is born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David.” At a time when men did not yet understand the mystery of the Gospel, their superiors, being the heavenly host of God, praising God say: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will among men.” And having said these things, the angels depart from the shepherds into heaven, leaving it for us to consider how the joy announced to us through the birth of Christ Jesus is glory to God in the highest, for those who were humbled to the dust ^C are returning to their rest, and are to glorify God in the highest through Christ. But the angels also marvel at the peace that is to be on earth through Jesus—the field of war into which that Lucifer, who rose in the morning, having fallen from heaven, is to be crushed by Jesus.

14. In addition to what has been said, this also must be known about the Gospel: that first it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the head of the whole body of those who are saved, as Mark says: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” But it also belongs to the apostles; wherefore Paul says: “According to my Gospel.” ^D

^A Yet the beginning of the Gospel (for it has its own magnitude, comprising a beginning, and what follows, and middle parts, and ends) is either the entire Old Testament, since John is its figure, or because of the connection of the New Testament to the Old, the ends of the Old Testament exhibited by John are the beginning of the Gospel, as the same Mark says: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Whence it comes to me to wonder ^B how those who dissent from the decrees of the Church assert two gods for the two Testaments, being no less refuted by this passage as well. For how can John be the beginning of the Gospel, as they themselves think, belonging to another God, a man of the Maker of the world, and ignorant, as they suppose, of the new divinity? Moreover, angels do not discharge the evangelical office in one brief instance, and only among shepherds; but rather, a sublime and flying angel in mid-heaven, having the Gospel, will evangelize every nation, since the good Father does not altogether abandon those who have fallen away from him. Therefore, that John, the son of Zebedee, says in the Apocalypse: “And I saw an ^C angel flying in mid-heaven, having an eternal Gospel, to evangelize those dwelling upon the earth, and to every nation, and tribe, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice: Fear God, and give him honor, because the hour of his judgment has come, and worship him who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and the fountains of waters.”

15. Since, therefore, according to one interpretation we have shown that the entire Old Testament is signified by the name of John, being the beginning of the Gospel, in order that these things may not be said without any testimony, we shall set forth what the Acts of the Apostles relates concerning the eunuch of the Queen of the Ethiopians and Philip: “For Philip, beginning,” it says, “from the Scripture of Isaiah, which says: As a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, he evangelized unto him the Lord Jesus.” For how, beginning from the prophet, ^D does he evangelize Jesus, unless Isaiah is some part of the beginning of the Gospel? Furthermore, that which we said at the beginning, that the entire divine Scripture can be called the Gospel, can be confirmed from this. For if he who evangelizes, evangelizes good things, and all who lived before the bodily advent of Christ…

and those who, before the bodily coming of Christ, preach that the things which are good are Christ, as we have already demonstrated, are in some way a part of the words of the Gospel. And we understand this Gospel, which is said to be proclaimed in the whole world, to be preached not only in this earthly place, but in the whole system of heaven and earth, or of the heavens and earth. And what need is there to prolong the discourse further as to what the Gospel is? Since these things have already been sufficiently stated, and from these things those who are not altogether dull and unlearned can gather similar things from the Scriptures, and perceive what glory the good things in Christ Jesus exhibit in the Gospel, being administered by men and angels, and, as I suspect, even by principalities and powers, by thrones and dominions, and by every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come, and indeed by Christ himself; here we shall bring to a close what we said must be narrated before the interpretation of what is read in these writings. Now, let us pray to God that He may be our helper through Christ in the Holy Spirit to unfold the mystical sense deposited in these words, just as a hidden treasure. ^B Explicit preface.

In the beginning was the Word

But if anyone thinks that we have digressed from the subject because we have discussed these things, explaining one signification of "beginning," let him know that this digression was both useful and necessary to the matter at hand. For if a beginning is ^A as of a transition, and of a way, and of length, and the beginning of a good way is to do just things, it ought to be known how every good way has as its beginning the doing of just things, and after the beginning, contemplation, and in what manner [it has] contemplation.

17. Again, there is also another beginning of generation, which can be seen in this saying: *In the beginning God created heaven and earth.* But I think that this is signified more clearly in Job by these words: *This is the beginning of the creation of the Lord, made to be mocked by his angels.* For someone might suppose that heaven and earth were made in the beginning before all things that are in the generation of the world. But it is better, having ^B regard for the opinion of Job, since many things have been made in bodies, that the first of those things which are in a body was he who is called the dragon, named also somewhere the great whale, which the Lord overcame. And it is necessary to consider whether, when the saints were leading a life free from all matter and body in beatitude, he who is called the dragon, after he fell from the pure life, was worthy that he should be bound in matter and body before all else; so that, for this reason, the Lord answering through the whirlwind and clouds says: *This is the beginning of the creation of the Lord, made to be mocked by his angels.* For it is possible that the dragon is not altogether the beginning of the creation of the Lord, but that among many things which were made in a body, so that they might be mocked by the angels, this dragon is the beginning, since some can exist in a body; yet not so. For even the soul of the sun is in a body, and so is the whole creation, of which the Apostle says: *The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain until now.* And perhaps it is of this that it is said: *The creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who made it subject in hope,* so that bodies may be in vanity, and the doing of bodily things, which is necessary for one existing in a body. For he who is in a body does not willingly do the things of the body. For this reason the creation was made subject ^C to vanity, not willingly; and he who does not will the things of the body ^D does what he does on account of hope, as if—

[[alt-version omitted]]

we should say that Paul wished to remain in the flesh, not of his own will, but on account of hope. For preferring to depart and to be with Christ, it was not irrational that he should wish to remain in the flesh for the benefit of others, and for the advancement in the things hoped for not only of himself, but also of those who were being benefited by him. ^A And according to this meaning, by which the beginning is signified as of generation, we shall be able to interpret also that which is said by Wisdom in the Proverbs: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works." It is possible, however, for it to be referred also to the former meaning, that is, that it is said as of a way: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways." Nor would it be absurd for one to call the God of all things the beginning, clearly falling into the position that the Father is the beginning of the Son, and the Creator the beginning of creatures, and, in a word, God the beginning of existing things. And he will find comfort through the text: "In the beginning was the Word," understanding the Word to be the Son, because he is said to be in the beginning, inasmuch as he is in the Father ^B.

18. Third is that from which they think that other things arise as from a preexisting matter, the beginning among those who know it to be unbegotten, but not among us who are persuaded that God made existing things from things that did not exist, as the mother of the seven martyrs in the Maccabean history and the angel of repentance in the Shepherd taught.

19. In addition to these, there is a beginning as it were according to form, in this way: if the firstborn of every creature is the image of the invisible God, his beginning is the Father; likewise also Christ is the beginning of those who are made according to the image of God. For if men are according to the image, and the image is according to the Father, ^C according to this then the Father is the beginning of the Son; but according to that, Christ is the beginning of men, who are made not according to that of which he is the image, but according to his image. And this context will harmonize with the same example: "In the beginning was the Word."

20. There is also a beginning of discipline, just as we call the elements the beginning of grammar. To this effect the Apostle says: "Whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the oracles of God." But the beginning of discipline is twofold, one according to nature, the other according to us: as if we should speak concerning Christ, that by nature his beginning is his divinity; but as regards us, who are not able ^D to attain the truth concerning him from his magnitude, the humanity, in as much as Jesus Christ is preached to little ones, and this as crucified; as according to this we say that the beginning of discipline is by nature Christ, in so far as he is the wisdom and power of God, but as regards us, the starting point from his humanity.

^A And the Word was made flesh, that he might dwell among us, that in this way alone we who are first might be able to contain him. And perhaps for this reason he is not only the firstborn of all creation, but he is also interpreted as Adam, which is man. That he is Adam, Paul says in these words: The last Adam into a quickening spirit.

21. Moreover, it is said that there is also a beginning of an action, in which action there is a certain end after the beginning. And observe whether wisdom, being the beginning of the actions of God, can be understood in this way as a beginning.

22. Now that so many significations of "beginning" occur to us in the present, we seek in what sense it ought to be understood: In the beginning was the Word. And it is clear that this beginning cannot be taken as of a beginning of transit, or of a path and length. Nor is it unclear that it is not of a beginning of generation. Nevertheless, it is possible for you to take it as a beginning from which, that is, the moving principle, since God commanded, and they were created. For Christ is in some way the Creator, to whom the Father said: Let there be light, and, Let there be a firmament. And Christ is Creator, as a beginning, in so far as he is wisdom; and for that reason he is called the beginning, because he is wisdom, as Wisdom says through Solomon: The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works, so that in the beginning the Word might be, that is, in wisdom: in accordance with the collection of contemplation and intelligences concerning all things, when wisdom is considered; but in accordance with the communion of the contemplated things to those which are capable of reason, when the Word is considered. Nor is it a marvel if, as we have said, the Savior, being many good things, contains in himself first, and second, and third [aspects]. For John added, speaking about the Word: What has been made, in him was life. Life has therefore been made in the Word. And neither is the Word, the God Word who is with the Father ^B by whom all things were made, something other than Christ; nor is the life something other than the Son of God, who says: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. Therefore, just as life was made in the Word, so the Word was in the beginning. Consider, however, whether it is possible for us to accept this meaning of the phrase, In the beginning was the Word, so that by wisdom and the patterns of the system of intelligences in him, all things may come to be. For I think that just as a house ^C and a ship is built or constructed according to the patterns and forms in the minds of those who preside over the structure, so the whole universe came to be according to the reasons of things to come, which were manifested by God in wisdom. For He made all things in wisdom. And it must be said that, having created, if I may so speak, the living wisdom, God [manifested in] her ^D

her to provide, out of the figures and forms which she possessed, the existence, and the formation, and the species of beings and of matter. But I myself consider whether it is possible to call the Son of God the "beginning" of beings, seeing that He says: *I am the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last*. It is necessary, however, to know that He is not called "beginning" in every respect. For how, as He is Life, can He be the beginning, since Life came to be in the Word, who is for that very reason the beginning of it? And it is even clearer that, insofar as He is the *firstborn from the dead*, He cannot be the beginning. And if we examine His titles carefully, He is the beginning only insofar as He is Wisdom; He is not the beginning insofar as He is the Word, since *the Word was in the beginning*—so that one might confidently say that Wisdom is older than ^B all the titles conceived for the *firstborn of all creation*. For God is in every way one and simple; but our Saviour, because of the many things for which God has set Him forth as *propitiation* and *firstfruits of all creation*, becomes many, or perhaps even purges all these things, being the one who is able to set all creation free. And for this reason He becomes the light of men, when men, obscured by wickedness, are in need of the light that *shineth in darkness, and is not apprehended by darkness*; He would not be the light of men, if men had not come to be in darkness. The same can be thought concerning His being the *firstborn from the dead*. For if, by hypothesis, the woman had not been decieved, and Adam had not fallen, but the man had been created for immortality and had obtained immortality, Christ would neither have descended into the dust of death, nor would He have died, there being no sin, nor would He have needed to die out of love for the human race. And had He not done these things, He would not have become the *firstborn from the dead*. ^C It must also be examined whether He would even have become the Shepherd, if man had not been compared to the senseless cattle, and become like them. For if God saves both men and cattle, He saves what He saves [in the way of] cattle by bestowing upon them a shepherd, since they do not comprehend the King. We must therefore investigate, by gathering together the titles of Jesus—such as those that have been added—whether, if the saints had not begun in blessedness and remained in it, these [titles] would have become so numerous. For perhaps only Wisdom remained, or perhaps also the Word, or also Life, and certainly Truth; but not the others which He assumed because of us. And blessed are those who, having need of the Son, have become such [as to require] ^D that...

as no longer to need Him as a physician healing the sick, nor as a shepherd, nor as redemption, but as Wisdom, and Word, and Righteousness, or whatever else ^A for those who, through perfection, are able to advance to His most beautiful qualities. So much regarding "In the beginning."

23. Let us now examine more diligently who this Word is.

^A have occurred for the present, taken from the text lying in the Gospels, we have set forth, inasmuch as He says that He is the Son of God. But also in the Apocalypse of John He says: "I am the first and the last, and the living, and I was dead; and behold, I am living for the ages of the ages." And again: "I have become the alpha and the omega, and the first and the last, the beginning and the end." There are not a few things that one who reads the holy books with attention may also take from the prophets, things similar to these; for instance, that He calls Himself an elect arrow, and a servant of God, and a light of the nations. ^B Isaiah speaks thus: "From my mother’s womb He called my name, and He set my mouth as a sharp sword, and He hid me under the shadow of His hand. He set me as an elect arrow, and in His quiver He hid me, and said to me, 'You are My servant, Israel, and in you I will be glorified.'" And after a few lines: "And my God shall be my strength." And He said to me: "It is a great thing for you to be called My servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to turn back the dispersion of Israel. Behold, I have placed you as a light of the nations, that you may be My salvation unto the end of the earth." But even in Jeremiah He likens Himself to a lamb: "I am as an innocent lamb led to be sacrificed." These things, therefore, and things similar to these, He says of Himself. ^C But it is possible to gather from the Gospels, and from the apostles, and through the prophets, thousands upon thousands of appellations by which the Son of God is called—whether by those who wrote the Gospels setting forth their own understanding of the things written concerning what He is, or by the apostles glorifying Him from the things they had learned, or by the prophets proclaiming His future coming and telling of the things concerning Him by various names. For example, John proclaims Him the Lamb of God, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world"; and concerning the man through these words: "This is He of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who has become before me, because He was before me'; and I did not know Him." And in the Catholic Epistle, John says He is an advocate for our souls to the Father, saying, "And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." ^D He adds that He is also a propitiation for our sins; and similar to this, Paul says He is a propitiation, asserting: "Whom God has set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, for the remission of sins that are past, in the forbearance of God." And according to Paul, He has been proclaimed as being the wisdom and power of God, as in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he says: "Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God." Which also he teaches, that He is sanctification and redemption: "He has become," he says, "wisdom to us from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." Furthermore, he teaches us that the same One is the high priest, when writing to the Hebrews: "Having therefore a high priest, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession." Even the prophets, besides

these things, call Him by other names. Jacob, in the blessing upon his sons, names ^A Judah: for he says, "Judah, your brethren shall praise you; your hands shall be upon the back of your enemies. Judah is a lion's whelp; from the shoot, my son, you have gone up; you lay down and slept as a lion, and as a lion's whelp. Who shall arouse him?" It is not, however, the time now to dwell upon each point, showing how the things said of Judah apply to Christ; and the objection that could justly be brought—namely, "A ruler shall not fail from Judah, and a leader from his loins, until he comes for whom it is reserved"—will be resolved more conveniently at another time. Isaiah also knows that Christ is called ^B Jacob and Israel, saying: "Jacob is my beloved, I will help him; Israel is my chosen one, my soul has accepted him. He shall announce judgment to the nations; he shall not contend, nor shall he cry out, nor shall anyone hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he shall not break, and smoking flax he shall not quench, until he brings forth judgment unto victory, and in his name shall the nations hope." That it is indeed Christ about whom these things are prophesied, Matthew clearly shows in the Gospel, citing the passage in part and saying, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: He shall not contend, nor shall he cry out," and the rest. Christ is also called ^C David, as when Ezekiel, prophesying to the shepherds, adds from the person of God: "I will raise up David my servant, who shall shepherd them." For it is not the patriarch David who will arise to shepherd the saints, but Christ. Furthermore, Isaiah calls Christ a rod and a flower with these words: "A rod shall go forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall ascend from his root, and the Spirit of God shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and the spirit of the fear of God shall fill him." ^D Our Lord is also called a stone in the Psalms, thus: "The stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner; this was from the Lord, and it is wonderful in our eyes." The Gospel, and Luke in the Acts, declare that this stone is no other than Christ. The Gospel indeed thus: "Have you never read: The stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner? Everyone who shall fall upon this stone shall be broken; but upon whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." In the Acts, however, Luke writes: "This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the head of the corner." Since, therefore, that Word which was in the beginning, the Word, I say, God with God, is one of the names attributed to the Savior, yet was not spoken by Him, but written by John, it will be worth our while to press those who, passing over so many names enumerated by us, use this one name of "Word" as if it were the principal one: again requiring the interpretation of them, if one should bring any forward, and admitting this one word of "Word"—

"—as though it were clear—that they may understand what the Son of God is who is called the Word. And especially since they continually use the verse, "My heart hath poured forth a good word" (Ps. XLIV, 1), thinking that the Son of God is a paternal utterance, as it were, laid out in syllables. And if we should accurately question them whether they attribute to Him a hypostasis and subsistence, they do not grant it; nor do they explain His essence, nor have we as yet said whether He is such or such, but rather, *somehow* an essence. For even a common person can understand a proclaimed word, but let them explain to us and bring forward such a Word that possesses life per se, which is either not separated from the Father—and in this respect neither subsists nor is the Son—or is separated, and the God Word possesses substance. Therefore, we must say that we should act no differently when He is designated by the name of "Word" than we do individually with the aforementioned names, when we explain from the property of the name the understanding of the thing named, and when we adapt certain reasons to explain how the Son of God is called by this or that name. For what is this private choice of theirs, not to insist on each one by looking at the force of the word, but, so to speak, when they have inquired how He is the door, how the vine, or for what reason we ought to understand Him to be the way, not to do the same when you hear Him called "Word" in the Scriptures? ^B In order, therefore, that we may more persuasively accept the things to be said about how the Son of God is the Word, we must begin from the names of His that were set before us at the beginning. And that this will seem to some a very great digression, we do not ignore; nevertheless, for one who attends, it will be useful for the matter at hand to examine the concepts upon which the names are placed, and the understanding of the things will follow from the progression of what is brought forward. ^C But having once fallen into the theology concerning the Savior, we must necessarily, with as much ability as we have, finding after inquiry the things about Him, understand Him more fully not only as He is the Word, but also the rest.

24. "He said, therefore, that He Himself was the light of the world, and" ^D that which is to follow will emerge, which will reveal the understanding of the things. Having fallen into the theology concerning the Savior, it is necessary, with as much ability as we have, to find after investigation the things concerning Him, and to understand Him more fully not only as He is the Word, but also the rest.

24. When, therefore, He said that He Himself was the light of the world, and

^A things near to this title must be examined—things which to some might appear not only near and similar, but even the very same. For there is the Light which is true, and the light of the nations; and the light of men, in the beginning of the Gospel before us: "For what has come into being, it says, in Him was life; and the life was the light of men, and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it." And the true light is written of in the following verses of the same Scripture: "It was the true light, which illumines every man coming into the world." And the light of the nations is in Isaiah, as we previously mentioned, when bringing forward his testimony: "Behold, I have set You as a light to the nations, that You may be for salvation to the end of the earth." Now the light of the world which falls under the senses is the sun, and after it, not inappropriately, the moon ^B and the stars will be called by the same name. But since this light falling under the senses, in that it illuminates earthly things, is said by Moses to have been made on the fourth day, it is not, however, the true light. But our Savior, shining upon those who are capable of reason, and ^C upon the most excellent parts of their souls, so that their mind may see its own proper intelligible objects, is the light of the intelligible world—I mean of those rational souls existing in this sensible world, and whatever else besides these fills the world; from which the Savior teaches us to be. Perhaps He Himself is the preeminent and most excellent part of it, so to speak, the sun of the great day of the Lord, for the sake of which day He says to those who were participants of His light: "Work while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work any longer; as long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." ^D Since, however, He also says to the disciples: "You are the light of the world," and: "Let your light shine before men," we suppose that in an analogy to the moon and the stars, this refers to the bride, the Church, and the disciples who possess their own light, or one acquired from the true Sun, so that they might illuminate those who are unable to produce a source of light within themselves. For example, we shall call Paul and Peter the light of the world; but those who are the common run of their disciples, though they are illuminated, yet they are not able to illuminate others, are the world, of which world the Apostles were the light. But the Savior, being the light of the world, illuminates not bodies, but the incorporeal mind by an incorporeal power, so that just as if by the sun, each one of us, being illuminated, might be able also to see other intelligible things. And just as when the sun shines, the ability of the moon and stars to illuminate is dimmed, so those who are illuminated by Christ and have received His rays have no need of any of the serving apostles and prophets—for one must dare to speak the truth—nor even of angels; and I shall add, not even of those higher powers, to the first-

-born light which has instructed them. ^A Moreover, to those who are in no way able to receive the solar rays of Christ, the saints themselves, acting as ministers, provide illumination, though it is far inferior to that which I have spoken of before, since they are barely able to receive even this lesser light, and are filled by it, however brief the reception. But Christ is the light of the world; He is also the true light, by way of distinction from that light which is perceived by sense; since nothing which is perceived by sense is true. Yet it does not follow that because what is perceived by sense is not true, it is therefore false; for that which is perceived by sense can have a proportion and analogy to that which is discerned by the mind and grasped by reason, even while it is surely and correctly stated of everything that is not "true" that it is not "false."

I ask, however, whether the "light of the world" is the same as the "light of men," and I am of the opinion that a greater power of light is manifested when He is called the "light of the world" than when He is called the "light of men," for the world, in one sense, is not men alone. ^B And Paul will show that the world is something greater or different than men in his former Epistle to the Corinthians, saying: "We have been made a spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men." Consider, however, whether in one sense the world is that creation which is said to be "delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God," the earnest expectation of which waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. Consider also—we added it because of the proximity of that which is capable—whether the words, "I am the light of the world," ought to be examined in relation to the disciples, as Jesus said to them: "Ye are the light of the world." ^C For there are those who suppose that those men who have been sincerely discipled by Jesus are more excellent than other creatures, some affirming that they have been made such by nature, others by means of the reason which is engaged in the more difficult struggle; for they hold that those who consist of flesh and blood have more labors and greater perils of life than those who are in an ethereal body. For they say that not even the celestial luminaries, if they had taken on earthly bodies, would have passed through the present life altogether safe from perils and entirely without sinning. Those who support this argument concerning men will use the testimonies of certain Scriptures which make declarations of the highest things concerning men ^D and which apply the supervenience of the promise to man, even though these same testimonies do not promise this for the creation—or, as we have understood it, for the world. For that passage, "That I and thou may be one, that they also may be one in us," and "Where I am, there also shall my servant be," is clearly written concerning men; but concerning the creation, that "it is delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God," they will add that if it is delivered, it does not at once partake of the glory of the children of God. Nor will these men fall silent regarding Him who is the firstborn of all creation, because of the honor which is bestowed upon Him above all things for the sake of man.

^A And furthermore, they will say that the star which appeared in the East was created as a minister and servant of the knowledge of Jesus, either being similar to the other stars, or perhaps even superior, as it was a sign prefiguring the most excellent of all. But if the boasting of the saints is in afflictions, as they know that affliction produces patience, and patience probation, and probation hope, and hope does not put to shame; then the creation that is not afflicted will have neither patience, nor probation, nor hope in equal measure, but of a different sort. For "the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope." But he who does not dare to grant such things to man, having departed elsewhere in his will, will say that the creation which is subjected to vanity is afflicted even more than those who groan in this tabernacle, inasmuch as it serves the vanity of the human struggle for a very long time and with multiplication. For why does it do this unwillingly, if not because it is against its nature to be subjected to vanity and not possess the primary state of life? This state it will receive when it is freed in the destruction of the world and released from the vanity of bodies. But since we seem to have said more than what pertains to the proposed problem, let us return to where the discourse had digressed, calling to memory for what reason the Savior is called the light of the world, and the true light, ^C and finally the light of men. It has been explained, then, that He is called the true light on account of the sensible light of the world; or whether to be the light of the world and the light of men is the same thing, or whether it falls into dispute whether it be the same or not. These things have been necessarily investigated by us for the sake of those who have offered no commentary as to why the Savior should be called the Word, so that we might be persuaded not to rest, by a kind of lot, in the understanding of this word "Word" alone, since it is less fitting that this word should not be expounded by way of translation, seeing that we expound that "light of the world," and many other things which we have brought forth, anagogically and allegorically.

25. ^D For just as by illuminating and shining upon the minds of men—or, generally, of all those who are capable of reason—He is the light of men, and the true light, and the light of the world; so, by the fact that He is the author of the laying aside of all mortality and of the engendering of that which we properly call life, to those risen from the dead who have sincerely received Him, He is called the resurrection. This, however, does not only work in the present in those who are able to say: "We were buried together with Christ through baptism, and we have risen together with Him"; but also

^A much more when one has put off all mortality, and walks in the newness of the life of the Son Himself. "We always carry about in the body the dying of Jesus," while we are here, when we have reaped a great fruit, "that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our bodies."

26. Furthermore, the way which has power to produce those who attain salvation through it, according to the expositions concerning truth in the divine Word and the actions existing in true righteousness, offers us to understand how Christ is called the way, in which way one must carry nothing—neither a wallet, nor a garment, nor even a staff—while traveling, nor have shoes bound upon the feet. For this way is sufficient in itself ^B for all the provisions necessary for the journey, and everyone who walks upon it is in need of nothing, being adorned with the garment with which it befits him who is invited to the wedding to be adorned, since no grievous thing can happen on this way. For it is difficult to find, as Solomon testifies, the ways of a serpent upon a rock, and, as I think, the ways of any wild beast whatever; for which reason there is no need for a staff on the way, which does not even have the tracks of the contrary powers, and is insusceptible to them because of its firmness—for which reason it is also called a rock—being such that it is free from worse things.

27. Now the Only-begotten is the truth, comprehending ^C in Himself with all clarity the reasoning concerning all things according to the will of the Father, and distributing to each, according to his dignity, the truth. But if anyone inquires whether everything that has been known to the Father according to the depth of His riches and wisdom and knowledge is known by our Savior, and if, by a fancy of glorifying the Father, someone declares that certain things are known by the Father of which the Son is ignorant, though He can equally, just like the unbegotten God, grasp apprehensions; it must be known that the Savior Himself, because He is the truth, is not ignorant of any truth, and this must be added especially: if the truth is solid, let it not be the case that truth limps, being diminished by the ignorance of those things which are in the Father *alone*, as they maintain; or let someone show that there are certain things which are known ^D but which cannot be called by the name of truth, but are situated above truth itself.

28. It is clear, moreover, that the source and fountain of a life that is more sincere and pure, and free from the mixture of any alien thing, exists properly in the Firstborn of all creation, from whom those who are partakers of Christ, receiving it, live truly the life; whereas those who are thought to live apart from Him, just as they do not have the true light, so neither do they live the true life.

29. And since in the Father or with the Father...

^A one who has not yet arrived by ascending from below to the divinity of the Son, through whom one can be led by the hand also to the Father's blessedness, cannot arrive, the Savior is inscribed as the door. Being a lover of mankind, He also becomes the shepherd for those who admit some inclination of their souls toward a better fruit, for those who are not hurrying toward the Word, but who have, like sheep, not the refined, but the irrational gentleness and mildness. For the Lord saves both men and beasts; and Israel and Judah are sown with seed not only of men, but also of beasts.

30. In addition to these things, one must consider from the beginning the name "Christ," and also take up the name "King," so that the difference might be understood by juxtaposition. It is said in the forty-fourth Psalm: "You who have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness, beyond your peers," as the cause of His having been anointed in this way, to have approached righteousness and hated lawlessness, as if He did not receive the anointing as something co-existing and co-acquired at the same time as His being, ^B which anointing is a symbol of kingship for those who are brought into being, and at times also of priesthood. Is the kingship of the Son of God, then, something that supervenes, and not connatural to Him? And how do they think the Firstborn of all creation, not being king, later became king because He loved righteousness, and that too, while being righteousness? But perhaps the human aspect of Him, being Christ, who is perceived as having an anxious and sorrowful soul because of the human element, escapes our notice, whereas the King is perceived according to the divine? I support this from the seventy-first Psalm, which says: ^C "God, give your judgment to the king, and your righteousness to the son of the king, that he may judge your people in righteousness, and your poor in judgment." For the Psalm, though clearly inscribed to Solomon, is prophesied concerning Christ; and it is worth seeing to which king the prophecy prays that judgment be given by God, and to which son of the king, and of which king [he prays that] the righteousness [be given]. I think, therefore, that the primary nature of the Firstborn of all creation, to whom is given judgment because of its excellence, is called king; but the man whom He assumed, fashioned and imprinted ^D according to righteousness by that [divine nature], is called the son of the king. And I am led to accept that this is so from the fact that both have been brought together into one account, and the things that are said are no longer spoken as if about two things, but as if about one. For the Savior has made both one, having made the firstfruits of both of the things that come into being, in Himself, before all things. I refer the word "both" to those men also who, possessing a soul mingled with the Holy Spirit, have become spiritual.

^A Just as, therefore, there are some who are shepherded by Christ because of their own—as we have said before—meek and stable, albeit more irrational, nature; so too are there those who are ruled by Him in a way more directed to reason, as they advance towards the worship of God. And there are differences among those who are ruled, since the King reigns in them either in a more mystical and ineffable and god-befitting manner, or in a more subordinate one. And I would say that those who have contemplated things outside of bodies—what are called by Paul things invisible and not seen, having been brought by reason outside of every sensible thing—are ruled by the primary nature of the Only-Begotten; whereas those who have reached only the level of reasoning about sensible things, and through these things glorify the Maker, are also ruled by reason, that is, ruled by Christ. Let no one be offended by our distinguishing ^B the concepts found in the Savior, imagining that in doing so we are making them identical in substance.

31. But it will be very clear even to ordinary people how our Lord is a teacher and expounder to those who strive for piety, and a Lord to those servants who possess the spirit of bondage unto fear; and if these make progress and strive with the greatest zeal toward wisdom, they are deemed worthy of this, because the servant does not know what his Lord wills, nor does the Lord any longer remain just a Lord, having become their friend—a fact He Himself teaches, where the listeners were still servants, saying: ^C "Ye call me the Master and the Lord, and ye say well, for so I am"; but elsewhere: "No longer do I call you servants, because the servant does not know what is the will of his lord; but I call you friends, because ye have remained with me in all my trials." Those, therefore, who live in fear—which God demands of servants who are not good, as we read in Malachi: "If I am a Lord, where is my fear?"—are servants of the Lord who is called their Savior.

52. But neither is the nobility of the Son clearly demonstrated by all this, but rather when: "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," is said to Him by God, to whom it is always "today." For there is not evening for God, nor is there morning, in my opinion, but the time ^D that extends itself, if I may so speak, with His unbegotten and eternal life, is the day "today" for Him, in which the Son is begotten; the beginning of whose generation is thus not found, just as it is not found for the day.

53. We must add to what has been said how the Son is the true vine. But this will be clear to those who understand in a manner worthy of prophetic grace: "Wine gladdeneth the heart of man." For if the heart is the faculty of understanding, and that which gladdens it is the most drinkable Word—

^A drawing one away from human affairs, and making one inspired, and causing one to be drunk with drunkenness—not that which is irrational, but divine, with which, I think, Joseph also makes his brothers drunk; then, with good reason, He who brings the wine that gladdens the heart of man is the true vine. It is true for this reason, because the cluster possesses the truth, and the branches are the disciples—imitators of Him, and they themselves bringing forth the fruit of truth. It is difficult, however, to set forth the difference between bread and the vine, since He calls Himself not only the vine, but also the bread of life. See, therefore, lest perhaps, just as bread nourishes and strengthens, and is said to strengthen the heart of man, while wine should also gladden and expand—so too the moral instructions, which bring life to the one learning and doing them, are the bread of life, but would not be called fruits of the vine; whereas the secret and mystical theorems, which gladden and make the soul inspired by the Divine, which are generated in those who delight in the Lord—those who desire not only to be nourished but also to be delighted ^B—are called the wine proceeding from the true vine.

34. Furthermore, regarding how He is written as the first and the last in the Apocalypse: in that He is first, He is distinct from Alpha, that is, from the beginning; and in that He is last, He is not the same as Omega and the end. I believe, therefore, that since rational animals are characterized by many species, there is something first among them, and second, and third, and so on, down to the last. Yet to say precisely what is first, and which is second, and of whom it is true that it is third, and so on, until the last is reached, is not altogether a human task, but is above our nature. Nevertheless, we shall endeavor to bring forward and explain, according to our ability, what seems to pertain to the clarification of this consideration. There are certain gods of whom God is God, as the prophecies say: "Confess to the God of gods," and, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken, and hath called the earth." But God, as the Gospel teaches, is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Therefore, those of whom God is God are also living. And the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, "As there are gods many, and lords many," ^C according to the prophetic voices, we have interpreted the name of gods as meaning that they exist. But there are also, besides the gods of whom God is God, others who are called thrones, and others called principalities, ^D and besides these, others who are called dominions and powers. Paul saying, "Above every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the age to come," and that there are others besides these, not very commonly named to us, we ought to believe that they are rational; one genus of which—for there are, there are also other powers whose names we do not even know.

Sabaoth was called by the Hebrew, for the reason that the name was formed as Sabaoth, being the ruler of those [orders], and not different from God. Beyond these, there is also the mortal rational being, man himself. The God of all, therefore, first made a certain rational genus which might excel the rest in honor—which, in my opinion, encompasses those who are called gods—and let a second [rank] in the present instance be called thrones, and a third, that without dissension, principalities. ^A And thus, one must descend from the rational to the ultimate rational, which perhaps is nothing other than man. The Savior, therefore, much more divinely than Paul, has become all things to all men, that He might either gain or perfect all; and He has clearly become man to men, and to angels an angel. ^B And while no one of those who have believed doubts that He became man, let us, regarding [the fact that He became] an angel, be persuaded by observing the appearances and words of the angels—whenever He appears having the authority of the angels, in certain places of the Scripture where angels are said to speak, as in the instance: "An angel of the Lord appeared in a flame of fire from the midst of the bush, and said: I am the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob." (Exod. III, 2, 6.) But Isaiah also says: "His name shall be called the Angel of the great counsel." (Isa. IX, 6.) The Savior, therefore, is First and Last, not that He is not also the intermediary [things], but for this reason He delights in the name of the two extremes, in order to declare that He has been all things. Examine then whether man is the ultimate rational being, or those things which are called subterranean, of whose number are the demons, whether all or some. One must inquire into those things to which the Savior also by becoming them, says, through the prophet David: "And I was made as a man without help, free among the dead." (Ps. LXXXVII, 5, 6.) ^C Just as having something more than men according to the birth from the Virgin, and according to the rest of His life in paradoxes, so also [was He] among the dead according to the [fact of] being alone free there, so that His soul was not left in Hades. Thus, therefore, is He First and Last. And if there are letters of God, as indeed there are, which as the saints read them, they say they have read those things on the tablets... ^D ...and to angels an angel. Perhaps, just as we say that this one is sent to that one, so the Son, the Word of God, who is now being theologized, was sent as an angel by the Father to him.

^A of heaven, those elements through which the heavenly things might be read, are the concepts, broken down into alpha and what follows, even to omega, the Son of God. Again, the beginning and the end are the same, but not the same according to the concepts. For the beginning, as we have learned in the Proverbs, insofar as He is Wisdom, is this: it is written, for instance, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works." But insofar as He is the Word, there is no beginning; "for in the beginning was the Word." Therefore, His concepts have a beginning, and a second thing after the beginning, and a third, and so on until the end: as if He were saying, "I am the beginning, insofar as I am wisdom; and a second, if it should happen to be so, insofar as I am invisible; and a third, insofar as I am life," since "what was made, in him was life." And if anyone is capable, while examining the mind of the Scriptures, of seeing, perhaps he will find many things of the order and the end—for I do not think he will find everything. But the beginning and the end seem clearer according to custom as if spoken of a unified thing: as, for example, the foundation is the beginning of a house, and the roof is the end. And this is indeed to be applied, because Christ is the cornerstone, to the unified whole body of those who are being saved, the example: for Christ, the only-begotten, is "all and in all," as the beginning in the man He assumed, and as the end in the last of the saints ^B clearly, and in those in between. Or as the beginning in Adam, and as the end in the advent, according to what is said: "The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." Yet this statement will also apply to the rendering of "the first and the last."

^C 35. But having observed what was said above by us regarding the terms "first" and "last," where we referred our discourse both to the species of rational beings and to the various appellations and concepts of the Son of God, we also have the difference between "first" and "beginning," and "last" and "end," and furthermore of Him who is called Alpha and Omega. Nor is it ambiguous how Christ is called "living and dead," and after this word, "dead," "living unto the ages of ages." For since we were not being helped by His previous life, being subject to sin, He Himself descended to our mortality, so that we, bearing the dying of Jesus in our body, might be able in order to grasp that life of His which existed after His death, unto the ages of ages; for those who always bear about the dying of Jesus in their body will also have the life of Jesus appearing clearly in their bodies.

36. And these things were indeed spoken by Him regarding Himself from the books of the New Testament. But regarding Isaiah...

he said that his mouth had been placed by the Father like a sharp sword, and that he had been hidden under the shadow of His hand, ^A likened meanwhile to a chosen arrow and hidden in the quiver of the Father, as the servant of the God of all, called by Him, and Israel, and a light to the nations. The sharp sword, therefore, is the mouth of the Son of God, since the Word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and reaching as far as the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; and besides, having come not to cast peace upon the earth—that is, upon corporeal and sensible things—but a sword, and to sever, if I may so speak, the harmful friendship of soul and body, so that the soul, surrendering ^B itself to the Spirit which wars against the flesh, may be reconciled to God; a sword, or as a sharp sword, He had His mouth, according to the prophetic word. But also, he who sees such a multitude wounded by divine love, just as she who in the Song of Songs confessed that she had suffered this, saying: "I am wounded with love," truly will find no other arrow wounding so many souls with the love of God than Him who says: "He has made me as a chosen arrow."

37. And whoever has understood how Jesus has become to those being discipled not as one reclining, but as one serving—since, being the Son of God, He took the form of a servant for the sake of liberating those who were enslaved to sin—will not be ignorant of the manner in which the Father says ^C to Him: "You are my servant," and shortly after: "It is a great thing for you to be called my servant." For we must dare to say that the goodness of Christ appears greater, more divine, and truly after the image of the Father, when He "humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross," than if He had considered equality with God a matter to be seized, and had not been willing, for the salvation of the world, to become a servant. For this reason, wishing to teach us that He has received a great gift from the Father by having so served, He says: "And my God shall be my strength;" and He said to me: "It is a great thing for you to be called my servant." For if He had not become a servant, He would not have raised up the tribes of Jacob, nor restored the dispersion of Israel; ^D nor would He have been a light to the nations, so as to be salvation unto the ends of the earth. And the fact that He became a servant is indeed a moderate thing, even if it is called great by the Father, in comparison with an innocent lamb and the Lamb; for just as an innocent lamb has He become, the Lamb of God who is led to be sacrificed, that He might take away the sin of the world; He who supplies the Word to all, having been likened to a lamb silent before him who shears him, so that by His death we might all be purified, being given over in the manner of a medicine.

^A For the death of Christ has rendered weak those powers which make war against the human race, and it makes the life in each of the believers escape from sin by an ineffable power. And since, until every enemy of his is destroyed, and last of all death, he takes away sin, so that the whole world may become without sin; for this reason John, pointing him out, says: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world"—not one who is going to take it away at some time, nor one who took it away formerly but does not take it away now; for he does not cease to take away sin from each one existing in the world, until sin has been removed from the whole world, and the Savior delivers a kingdom ready to the ^B Father, in which there shall not even be any trivial sin left that is able to admit being ruled by the Father, but that again admits all things of God in its entirety and completeness, when that which is written is fulfilled: "That God may be all in all." But besides these things he is spoken of as a man coming after John, born before him, and existing before him, that we may be taught that the man of the Son of God, mingled in his divinity, existed even before his generation from Mary, which man the Baptist says he did not know. But how did he not know him, who leaped for joy while still an infant in the womb of Elizabeth, when the voice of Mary's greeting came to the ears of the wife of Zacharias? ^C Observe, then, whether what John says of not knowing him can be referred to that time when Christ himself had not yet appeared in the body. But if he did not know Christ himself before he had appeared in the body at that time, though he had already recognized him as existing in the womb of his mother, perhaps he is learning something else about him, different from that which he recognized, namely, that he upon whom the Holy Spirit would descend and remain, he is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire. For if he knew him even from his mother's womb, he certainly did not know everything concerning him. Perhaps he was even unaware that this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire, when he saw the Spirit descending and remaining upon him. Nevertheless, John knew the man himself even before.

38. However, none of the words we have said above ^D declares equally his advocacy for us before the Father, interceding for the nature of men and expiating it, as the "Advocate," and the "Propitiation," as the [previous text states].

^A And the propitiator: John indeed calls him this in his Epistle, saying: "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just." He is also called propitiation by the same [author] in the same Epistle: "And he is the propitiation for our sins." Similarly in the Epistle to the Romans, "propitiator"; "whom God hath proposed to be a propitiator, through faith," of which propitiatory that golden propitiatory placed over the two cherubim in the inner sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was a certain shadow. But how could Jesus be advocate, and propitiation, and propitiator, without the power of God obliterating our weakness, and flowing into the souls of believers, and being administered by Jesus, who is the first of these, since he is the very power of God, through whom one might say: "I can do all things in Christ who strengtheneth me"? Wherefore, ^B while we know that Simon the Magus, who proclaimed himself to be the power of God which is called the Great, went with his silver into destruction and perdition, we, confessing Christ truly to be the power of God, are persuaded that all things which possess power are partakers of him.

59. Neither should this be passed over in silence by us, that Jesus is deservedly the Wisdom of God, and for this reason is called by this name; for his Wisdom does not possess the substance of God and the Father of all in mere fantasies, according to images analogous to human thoughts. But if any one is able to conceive of an incorporeal substance of various speculations, containing the reasons of all things, living and, as it were, animate, he will rightly know the Wisdom of God, which is superior to every creature, saying of itself: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, for his works," ^C through which creation every creature has been able to subsist, not being devoid of divine wisdom, through which it was made; since, as David witnesses, "In wisdom hath God made all things." But while many things have come into being through the participation of wisdom, they do not themselves perceive the wisdom by which they were created; yet very few not only grasp the wisdom regarding themselves, but also that regarding many other things, attaining to Christ, who is all wisdom. And each of the wise, in as much as he contains wisdom, by so much does he partake of Christ, in so far as he is wisdom; just as each of those who possess powers, according to how much they have attained of power, by so much have they shared in Christ, in so far as he is power. ^D The same must also be thought regarding sanctification and redemption. For Christ has himself become for us the very sanctification, whence the saints derive sanctification, and the redemption; and each one of us is sanctified by that sanctification, and is redeemed according to that redemption. And consider whether the phrase "for us" added by the Apostle is in vain, when he says: "Who of God is made unto us wisdom from

^A God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." And if in other places he were spoken of absolutely as the wisdom of Christ, and as power—in that Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God—even if we had supposed that he was not essentially wisdom nor the power of God, but only for us; yet now, in the case of wisdom and power, both the "for us" and the absolute are recorded; whereas in the case of sanctification and redemption, this same declaration is not made. Wherefore, see, since "both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one," whether the Father is the sanctification of our sanctification itself; just as, since Christ is our head, the Father is his head. And Christ is our redemption, because we, having been led into captivity, had need of redemption. But I do not seek the redemption of him who was "tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin," ^B and was never held in captivity by the enemies.

40. But since we have once distinguished between the term "for us" and the term "simply," saying that sanctification and redemption are not written by Paul as Christ simply, but with the addition "for us" (whereas both power and wisdom are spoken of with the addition "for us," and also simply without the term "for us"), we must not leave the discussion concerning righteousness unexamined. And that Christ is for us righteousness is clear from this: "Who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." But if we do not find him called righteousness simply, as he is called the wisdom and power of God simply, we must inquire whether, just as the Father is the sanctification ^C of Christ himself, so the Father is also his righteousness. For there is no unrighteousness with God, and the Lord is just and holy, and in righteousness are his judgments; and since he is just, he dispenses all things justly.

Now, concerning what the heretics say—that the just is different from the good, a point which they themselves do not explain, imagining that the Maker of the world is just, but the Father of Christ is good—I think that, when accurately examined, it could be said of the Father and the Son: the Son himself is righteousness, he who "received authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man," and "he shall judge the world in righteousness"; but the Father, by bestowing benefits upon those who have been ^D instructed in the righteousness of the Son after the kingdom of Christ, will show the appellation of "good" by his works, when "God shall be all in all." And perhaps the Savior prepares all things with his own righteousness, in suitable times, and with reason, and order, and punishments, and with, if I may so say, his own spiritual medicinal remedies, in order to make way at the end for the goodness of the Father, which, when he has perceived it toward the Only-begotten, he says: Good Master—he says, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one...

that is God the Father. ^A We have shown a similar thing in other places, and also regarding a certain ^B being lesser than the Creator, while yet explaining Christ as Creator, but the Father as greater than him. For since he who becomes all these things—the Advocate, the Propitiation, the Mercy-seat—having compassion on our infirmities, by being tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin, is a great high priest, not only for men, but also for every rational creature, having offered himself as the one sacrifice once for all. For "apart from God he tasted death for every man" (which stands in some copies ^C of the Epistle to the Hebrews), or "by the grace of God he tasted death for every man." But whether it be "apart from God he tasted death for every man," he died not only for men but also for the rest of rational creatures; or whether it be "by the grace of God he tasted death for every man," he died for all "apart from God"; for by the grace of God he tasted death for every man. For it is surely absurd to say that he tasted death for human sins, but not also for any others in addition to man who have fallen into sin, such as for the stars; ^D not even the stars being entirely pure before God, as we have read in Job: "The stars also are not pure in his sight," unless this is perhaps spoken hyperbolically. For this reason he is a great high priest, because he restores all things to the kingdom of the Father, administering the filling up of the things lacking in each of the created beings, so that they may contain the Father's glory. This high priest, according to another conception beyond those mentioned, is called Judas, so that those who are Jews in secret may not be named Jews from Judas the son of Jacob the son of Judah, but from him, being his brothers, and praising him, receiving the freedom by which they are set free by him, being delivered from his enemies, while he lays his hands upon their back and subjects them to himself. Moreover, having supplanted the opposing activity, and being the only one who sees the Father (even when he has become man), he is Jacob and Israel, from whom, just as we become light, since he is the light of the world, so we are also called Jacob and Israel, as he is called Jacob and Israel. ^D For since he receives the kingdom from the king whom the sons of Israel had set as king for themselves, and having begun their reign not through God, and not having made themselves known to God, he, waging the wars of the Lord, prepares peace for his son, namely his people; and perhaps for this reason he is named David; and after this, a rod, for those in need.

^A of laborious and harsher discipline, and who have not yet committed themselves to the love and gentleness of the Father. For this reason, if he is called a rod, he will go forth; for he does not remain within himself, but seems to be outside his original state. And having gone forth and become a rod, he does not remain a rod, but after the rod, a flower grows up; and the end of being a rod is shown to be the flower to those who, by his having become a rod, have obtained visitation. For God will visit in the rod, that is, in Christ, the iniquities of those whom he visits; but he will not scatter his mercy ^B from him, for he has mercy on him, since when the Son wills that any be shown mercy, the Father shows mercy. It is possible, however, not to understand these as the same—that he becomes both rod and flower—but that the rod is for those in need of punishment, and the flower for those who are being saved. But I think the former is better. Yet this also must be added at this point: perhaps, because of the end, if to someone he becomes a rod, he is certainly also a flower, but not vice versa; for if to someone he is a flower, he is not to that person necessarily also a rod; unless, perhaps, because there is a "flower" more perfect than the flower, and of the blossoming spoken of regarding those not yet bringing forth perfect fruit, the perfect ones attain what is above the flower of Christ. But those who have been tested by his rod will not, together with the rod, be participants in the perfection of Christ, but only of the flower that precedes his fruits. Finally, before the examination of the word, Christ is the stone rejected by the builders and placed as the head of the corner. For since living stones are built upon the foundation, ^C with other stones of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus our Lord himself being the corner-stone, because he is part of the structure which is formed of living stones in the land of the living, he is called a stone. All these things have been said by us, wishing to refute the many who, out of a certain private choice, both utilize and are slothful in searching—for although there are so many names that are referred to Christ, they are content only with the name of *Logos* [that is, of reason and discourse], not examining why ever the Son of God, God in the beginning with the Father, through whom all things were made, is inscribed as *Logos* ^D.

42. Therefore, just as because of his action, in that he illuminates the world, whose light he is, he is called light of the world; and from the fact that he is the author of the laying aside of mortification for those who sincerely adhere to him and, rising again, receive the newness of life, he is called resurrection; likewise, because of another action, he is called shepherd and teacher and king and chosen arrow and servant, and in addition to these, advocate and propitiation and propitiator; so also he is called *Logos* [that is, reason], removing whatever is irrational in us, and...

^A preparing us to be in accordance with truth by making us partakers of reason, performing all the works of life, both the common and the more perfect ones, for the glory of God, to the point that even in eating and drinking we do all things for the glory of God through the Logos. For if by partaking of him we are resurrected and enlightened, and perhaps also pastured or ruled, it is clear that we also become reasonably divine, since he, insofar as he is Logos and resurrection, destroys the irrational elements in us and our deadness. But observe whether all men are partakers of him in some way, insofar as he is Logos.

Therefore the Apostle teaches us that he is not to be sought outside of those who seek him, by those who are resolved to find him, saying: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" — that is, to bring Christ down; or, "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" — that is, to bring Christ up from the dead. But what does the Scripture say? "The word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart," as if Christ himself were also the word that is being sought. More than this, even when the Lord himself says, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin," but now they have no excuse for their sin, we must understand nothing else than that the Logos says that there is no sin in those to whom [the Logos] has not yet been fulfilled, but that those are guilty of it who, having already partaken of him, act contrary to the concepts from which this [Logos] is fulfilled in us. ^B And only in this way is it true that "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin." For let this be examined with regard to the visible Jesus, as the many will think, and let it be seen how it is true that those to whom he has not come have no sin. For all those who were before the coming of the Savior would be exempt from all sin, since Jesus, being visible according to the flesh, had not come. But also all those to whom there has been no proclamation about him will have no sin. And it is clear that those who have no sin are not subject to judgment.

But the Logos that is in men, of which we have said our race partakes, is spoken of in two ways: either according to the completion of the concepts, which exists in everyone who has passed the age of childhood, setting aside prodigies; or according to the highest degree, which is found only in the perfect. According to the first, therefore, [are to be taken] the words, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin"; ^C and we must choose [this interpretation for] those passages. But according to the second [we are to take], "All who came before me are thieves and robbers, and the sheep did not hear them." For before the perfection of the Logos, all things that are in men are blameworthy, as being needy and incomplete, to which the irrational things in us do not perfectly obey — these being called sheep in a more tropical sense. And perhaps according to the first [sense], the Logos became flesh; but according to the second, the Logos was God. And following this, it is necessary to inquire what is between [this], "The Logos became flesh," and "The Logos was God," so as to see, within what pertains to humanity, as it were, the reconstituting of the Logos from his having become... ^D [id est ratio] which is in men, whose [nature] our race partakes, is said in two ways: either according to the completion which is in everyone who transcends the age of boyhood, setting aside portents; or according to the highest perfection, which is found in the perfect alone. Therefore, according to the former sense, these words are to be understood: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin"; but according to the latter, in truth: "All, as many as came before me, are thieves and robbers, and the sheep did not hear them." For before reason is perfected, all things that are in men are blameworthy, because they are needy and imperfect, and to these they do not perfectly conform, as the reason...

^A that is in the beginning, God the Word who was with the Father, whose glory John saw as the Word, truly the Only-Begotten, as from the Father. The Word can also be the Son, in that he declares the hidden things of that Father, analogous to the Son who is called the Word of the one who exists. For just as the word with us is a messenger of the things seen by the mind, so the Word of God, having known the Father (for none of those generated can approach him without a guide), reveals the Father whom he knows. For no one has known the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son reveals him; and insofar as he is the Word, he is the messenger of the great counsel, the beginning of which was upon his shoulder; for he reigned through having suffered the cross. But in the Apocalypse he is said to sit upon a white horse, a faithful and true word, which, in my opinion, represents ^B the clarity of the voice of the Word of truth that comes to us. It is not the time now to show that the term "horse" is frequently used in Scripture in the passage in which the things before us are contained, through which we are edified by listening to divine instructions. Let us merely mention one or two passages: this one, "A horse is a vain thing for safety," and that one, "Some in chariots, and some in horses, but we will make our boast in the name of the Lord our God." But as for that which is written in the forty-fourth Psalm: "My heart hath poured forth a good word; I speak my works to the king," which is very frequently repeated by many as if they understood it, we must not pass over it unexamined. For even if one were to say that the Father says these things, what then is his heart, so that the good word may appear as a consequence of that heart? For if the word does not stand in need of interpretation, as those people suppose, it is clear that ^C the term "heart" also does not stand in need of interpretation—which is most absurd—that is, to think that the heart is a part of God, just as it is in our own body. But they must be reminded that, just as God is called hand and arm and finger, not for us to fix our minds upon the mere word, but to examine how these things must be understood soundly and worthily of God, so also the heart of God must be understood as his power that is intellectual and causative regarding all things; and the word as the declamatory power of those things that are in it. And who declares the counsel of the Father to those among the generated who are worthy and who have come into existence after them, if not the Saviour? Perhaps also the word "poured forth" is not used in vain; for countless other things could have been said instead of "poured forth." ^D "My heart brought forth a good word; my heart spoke a good word." But perhaps, just as an effluence (or "belching") is a progression of some hidden spirit into the open, as if it were breathing through this, so the Father, possessing the theorems of truth, pours them forth, and creates the imprint of them in the Word; and for this reason he is called the image of the hidden One.

^A And these things, to be sure, we have received by condescending to the common understanding, that it is the Father who speaks: "My heart hath poured forth a good word." But we must not entirely yield to them, as if it were acknowledged that these are spoken by God. For why should it not be the Prophet, filled with the Spirit and uttering a good word concerning the prophecy about Christ, who—unable to contain it—says: "My heart hath poured forth a good word; I say my works to the king; my tongue is the pen of a ready writer; thou art fair in beauty beyond the sons of men," and then, towards Christ himself: "Grace is poured forth upon thy lips"? For if the Father were speaking these things, how could there be added to the phrase, "Grace is poured forth upon thy lips," ^B the following: "Therefore God hath blessed thee for ever," and after a few words: "Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy fellows"? Someone might object (wishing these words of the psalm to be uttered by the Father): "Hear, O daughter, and see and incline thine ear, and forget thy people and thy father's house," and argue that the Prophet would not be the one to say to the Church: "Hear, O daughter." But it is not difficult to show, even from other psalms, that there are frequently exchanges of persons, so that one can say that even here, from "Hear, O daughter," the Father may be speaking. We must add to our examination concerning the Word that passage: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all their power by the spirit of his mouth," ^C which some think refers to the Savior and the Holy Spirit, as they are able to signify that by the word of God the heavens were established—just as if we were to say that the house was made by architectural reason, and the ship by shipwright's reason; so, therefore, the heavens were established by the word of God, as it is a more divine body, and for this reason called the firmament, not having the excessively fluid and dissoluble nature of other things, and because it has a different [nature], it is especially established by the divine Word. Since, therefore, it is proposed, "In the beginning was the Word," to see clearly—and since "beginning" has been rendered with the testimony from the Proverbs to be Wisdom, and Wisdom is conceived prior to the Word who declares it—we must understand the Word ^D to be always in the beginning, that is, in Wisdom. And being in Wisdom, which is called the beginning, he is not hindered from being with God, and being God himself; and not being bare toward God, but being in the beginning, in Wisdom, he is with God. He adds, therefore, and says: "This one was in the beginning with God." For he could have said: "This one was with God." But just as he was in the beginning, so also he was with God. "In the beginning he was, and all things were made through him," he being in

the rest of the lower matters: on account of which difference and excellence we say that the heaven too was established by divine reason. Since, therefore, it is proposed that we understand clearly this saying, *In the beginning was the Word* [that is, the discourse or reason], and it has been explained that the beginning is called wisdom, with testimonies taken from the Proverbs, and wisdom is considered before the word that announces it, we must understand that the word in the beginning, that is, in wisdom, always exists; and while it is in that wisdom which is called the beginning, it is not prevented from being with God, since it is also itself God. Nor is it simply of God, but, existing in the beginning (similarly to wisdom), it is with God; for he adds, and says: *He was in the beginning with God*. For he could have said: *He was with God*. But just as he was in the beginning, so also was he in the beginning with God; *and all things were made through him*, as he exists in the beginning; for God made all things (as David witnesses) in wisdom. To these things, that we may understand that the Word has his own proper inscription, as one who attains life through himself, we must also speak of *powers*, not of power. *These things saith the Lord of powers* is found in many places, with the name ^A of powers being understood as certain divine living beings, which are capable of reason, to whom Christ is superior and more excellent, being called not only the wisdom of God, but also his power. As, therefore, there are many virtues, each of which has a description by which the Savior differs, so also the Word [that is, that Son of God, that reason] (even if that reason which is in us does not have a description outside ourselves) shall be understood as Christ, according to those things we investigated before, having his hypostasis in the beginning, that is, in wisdom. But enough for now concerning that which is: *In the beginning was the Word*. ^B

ORIGEN'S EXPLANATIONS ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN: TOMUS II

^C 1. *And the Word was with God, and the Word was God*. Sufficiently, according to our strength, holy Ambrose, brother likewise fashioned according to the Gospel, since we have previously discussed what the Gospel is, and what is the beginning in which the Word was, and who is that Word which was in the beginning, let us consequently consider now in what manner that Word was with God. It will therefore be useful for this explanation to collect the word which is written as having been directed to certain persons. For example: *The word of the Lord came to Hosea, son of Beeri*; and, *The word which came to Isaiah, son of Amos, concerning Judea and concerning Jerusalem*; and, *The word which came to Jeremiah concerning the drought*. How, therefore, ^D is the word of the Lord [to be understood]? You babble, vain heretic. For God was always, and he himself is wisdom; Wisdom is not one thing and he himself another in it. Nor does it admit of a comparison with the rational powers, but in this way you exist as a Greek.

^A Since the word of the Lord came to Hosea, and the word is that which came to Isaiah the son of Amoz, and again the word to Jeremiah concerning the drought, one must consider them, so that by making a comparison, it may be possible to discover in what manner that Word was with God. Now the multitude will understand what is said concerning the prophets more simply, as if it were the word of the Lord, or the word having come to them. But beware, lest perhaps, as we say that this one comes to that one, so also the Son, the Word, now considered theologically, has come to be to Hosea, having been sent to him by the Father: concerning the history, to the prophet Hosea the son of Beeri, but according to the mystical meaning, to the Saved One (for Hosea, if you interpret it, sounds "saved") son of Beeri, which name is interpreted "wells"; for since the wisdom of God wells up from the depth, each of those being saved becomes a son of wells. And it is not at all strange that the holy one is thus a son of wells, who is called a son in many places due to his virtuous deeds: on the one hand, from his works shining before men, a "son of light"; on the other, because he has the peace of God which surpasses all understanding, a "son of peace"; ^B and furthermore, because of the benefit from wisdom, a "child of wisdom": "For wisdom," he says, "is justified by her children." Thus, therefore, he who searches all things and the depths of God by the divine Spirit, so as to exclaim: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" can be a son of wells, to whom the word of the Lord comes. Likewise the word also comes to Isaiah, teaching the things about to happen in the last days to Judea and Jerusalem; and in the same way also to Jeremiah, he having been exalted by a divine lifting-up (for "lifting-up" is interpreted as Jao). But to men—who were not previously capable of the advent of the Son of God, who is the Word—the Word comes; but to God it does not come, as if it did not previously exist with him, but because it is always with the Father, it is said: "And the Word was with God;" for it did not come-to-be with God, and the same word "was" is predicated of the Word, because it was in the beginning and because it was with God, neither being separated from the beginning, nor being left behind by the Father; and again, neither coming to be in the beginning from a state of not being in the beginning, nor coming to be with God from a state of not being with God upon the condition of being with God; for before every time and age, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." Since, therefore, for the sake of finding the meaning of "And the Word was with God," we have set forth the prophetic words—how the word came ^C to Hosea, and to Isaiah, and to Jeremiah—and we have observed no trivial difference between "came-to-be" and "was," we will add,

Tomus II

^A that while in its coming-to-be toward the prophets it enlightens the prophets with the light of knowledge, making them see what they did not understand before the word itself came to them, as if they were seeing face-to-face; yet regarding God, it is God, being what it is from its being toward Him. And perhaps John, seeing such an order in the Word, did not put first the phrase, "God was the Word," instead of "The Word was toward God," in so far as the statements are concerned—for nothing in the sequence would have hindered the understanding of the power of each of the propositions themselves. For one proposition is, "In the beginning was the Word," and the second is, "The Word was toward God," and so forth, "And God was the Word." But since perhaps it denotes a certain order that the first phrase was placed, "In the beginning was the Word," followed by the sequence, "And the Word was toward God," and thirdly, "And God was the Word," it is for this reason that it is said—so that it might be understood that the Word, by being toward God, becomes God—"And the Word was toward God," then, "And God was the Word."

2. Moreover, with great observation (not as one unaware of the elaborate Greek manner of speaking), John elsewhere used the articles, while in other places he omitted them: for while he added the article in the word 'Word' (Logos), in the word 'God' (Theos) he sometimes places it, and sometimes, for the sake of differentiation, omits it. For he places the article when the name 'God' is set over the unbegotten Author of all, but he is silent on it when the Word is called God. And as 'the God' and 'God' differ in these places, so perhaps also 'the Word' and 'Word' differ. For just as the God over all is 'the God' (ho Theos), and not simply 'God' (Theos), so the Source of the word within each of the rational beings, the Word, would not be called and spoken of as properly similar to the first Word. And that which disturbs many God-loving people, who are cautious about proclaiming two gods and, because of this, fall into false and impious dogmas—namely, either denying the distinct property of the Son ^B from that of the Father, or confessing Him to be God in a way that suggests He is the true God simply—they are led into error when they hear that they themselves are gods ^C by participation in God, since the property... ^D [This distinction has provoked the censures of some against Origen. Chrysostom, indeed, in his third homily on John, explodes it, concealing the author's name. They should have attended to how it is explained in the following: The Father, he says, is God from Himself, and is called 'the God'; the Son is God from the Father—God from God, as the Nicene Council speaks; and he is to be called 'God.' As to the meaning of the entire disputation: Just as the Father is, from whom the Son has His being as God, and the others who are called gods are so because the Father is the beginning of all divinity; so from the Son, who is the reason and the source of all reason, those who use reason have the capacity to be participants in reason. Therefore, just as the Father communicates His divinity to the Son, so the Son communicates reason to those who are participants in reason. The Father is the beginning of the Son's divinity; the Son is the beginning of the reason of those who are capable of reason. And in that sense, as the Father is to the Son, so is the Son to those who are endowed with reason. This comparison, therefore, is imperfect and limps in many respects. The Father, however, because He is the beginning and source of all divinity, is therefore called 'the God'; the others [are called gods] by participation in the divinity of God—most certainly the Son, and those who are called gods. But they do not receive divinity from the Father in the same way; for the Son is God from the Father in such a way that the Father and the Son possess one and the same divinity: but the others, the gods, are endowed with a diverse, unequal, and different divinity. Let no one, therefore, be moved by the term which applies to all those who have their being from another, whether by generation, or by procession, or by creation, as we will demonstrate a little further on. Truly, the word sometimes signifies simply 'to exist' or 'to be.' And this last meaning seems to be attributed here. These things being thus explained, the accusations of a certain very learned man are easily refuted, who accuses Origen of violating the dignity of the Son on account of this passage, although he may have often slipped in the same argument elsewhere.]

^A And the refutation of those who deny the divinity of the Son, yet attribute to Him an individuality and essence that is distinct and circumscribed differently from the Father, may be derived from this. For it must be said to them that the God is indeed *autotheos* (God in Himself), which is why the Savior says in His prayer to the Father: "That they may know Thee the only true God." But everything outside of the *autotheos*, being deified by participation in His divinity, would more properly be called God (without the article) than "the God." ^B And the Firstborn of all creation, inasmuch as He is the first to exist with God, for He has drawn divinity unto Himself, is more honorable than the other gods who are beside Him, of whom God is the God, according to what is said: "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken, and hath called the earth." He ministered to their becoming gods, having drawn from God to deify them abundantly, and according to His own goodness, distributed it to them. Therefore, the true God is "the God"; but those who are formed according to Him are gods, as if they were images of the archetype. But again, the archetypal image of many images is that Word who is with God, existing in the beginning as God, who would not have retained this had He not been with God, and would not have remained God had He not remained in the unceasing contemplation of the Father’s depth.

3. But because it is likely ^C that many will be offended because we have said there is one true God, namely the Father, and that besides the true God there are many gods made so by participation in God — fearing to equate the glory of Him who excels all creation with the others who receive the appellation of God (without the article), beyond the supplied distinction by which we said that the God the Word is the minister of divinity to all other gods — this distinction also must be added: for the *logos* within each of the rational beings has this relation to the Word who is in the beginning with God, who is God the Word, that the God the Word has to God. For just as the *autotheos* and true God is the Father in relation to the image, and to the images of the image (for which reason men are also said to be "according to the image," but not "images"), so in this same way does the same Word relate to the *logos* that is in every individual. ^D For both occupy the place of a source: the Father of divinity, and the Son of the *logos*. Therefore, just as there are many gods, but to us there is one God, the Father; and many lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ; so there are many *logoi*, but we pray that there may exist for us...

^A that Word which is in the beginning, which is God with God. For whoever does not grasp this Word which is in the beginning with God, or [the Word] that has become flesh for him, or does not share in any of those who share in this Word, or by falling away from sharing in one who shares, will be called one who is altogether alien to the word. ^B And what has been said will be clear from examples concerning God, and the God Word, and gods, either as things participating in God, or as those called gods but in no way being gods; and again, God Word, and the Word that became God flesh, and*logoi* (82) as those participating in some way in the Word, *logoi* of the second or third order, besides the one who is before all, thought to be *logoi* but not being *logoi* in truth, but, if I may so speak, the whole of this being irrational *logoi*, just as also in the case of those called gods but not being gods, one might place in place of irrational *logoi* the "not-gods gods." Now, the God of the whole is the God of the election, (83) and much more so [the God] of the Savior of the election; next, he is the God of the true gods, and, simply put, the God of the living and not of the dead; ^C but the God Word is perhaps the God of those who stand in him as the whole and who consider him to be the Father. The sun, however, and the moon, and the stars, as some of those before us (84) have explained, were allotted to those who were not worthy for the God of gods to be inscribed as being their God. And they understood in this way, having been moved by the things in Deuteronomy which read as follows: "Lest, having looked up to heaven and seen the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven, you be led astray and worship them and pay them service, which the Lord your God has allotted to all the nations: but the Lord your God has not given them to you in this way." For how did God allot the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven to all the nations, while not having given them in this way to Israel? In order that those who are not able to ascend to the intelligible nature, moved through sensible, divine things concerning divinity, might find it acceptable to stand even in these, and not fall into idols and demons. Accordingly, some have as God the God of all; others, after these, standing in the second place, [have] the Son of God, his Christ; and a third [group are] those who [worship] the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven, having indeed been led astray from God, yet [pursuing] a straying far different and better than those who call the works of men's hands gods, ^D [these are] the *in the beginning Word*, the *God Word*... [The text continues in the margin with reflections on the Word].

v.i: Since God, as one who is foreknowing, knew that this man would not believe, nevertheless, in order that he might attain the perfection of which he was capable, he gave to him philosophy, but before faith; and he gave the sun, and the moon, and the stars for religion; which God made for the nations, says the law, lest having become completely atheists they completely perish. But those who were ungrateful even while in this commandment, having become attached to carved images, will be judged if they do not repent; some, because being able they did not wish to believe in God; others, because even wishing, they did not strive to become believers; indeed, even those who did not return from the worship of the stars to their maker. For this was the way given to the nations to look up to God through the worship of the stars.

^A providing them with gold and silver, the exquisite works of art. The last are those who are dedicated to what are called gods, but which are in no way gods. Thus, some indeed partake of the Word himself who is in the beginning, and [who was] with God as the Word, and [who was] God as the Word, just as Hosea, and Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and whoever else has presented himself as such, so that the word of the Lord or the Word might come to him; others, however, who know nothing but Jesus Christ, and him crucified, regarding the Word who became flesh as the entirety of the Word, know Christ only according to the flesh. Such is the multitude of those who are thought to believe. And thirdly, there are those who have applied themselves to words [or *by words*] which partake of the Word, as if they were superior to every word. And perhaps these are they who practice the schools that are considered virtuous and distinguished in philosophy among the Greeks. Fourthly, besides these (85) are those who have believed in words that are entirely corrupt and godless, overturning the manifest and almost palpable Providence, and admitting some other end than the good. Even if we have seemed to digress, I believe that we have done so concisely in order to see clearly four things concerning the name "God," and four concerning the name "Word"; for there was the ^B God [with the article] and God [without the article], then gods in a twofold sense, of which the God Word, who is surpassed by the God of all, is superior to the better class (86) (87). And again, there was the Word, and perhaps also Word, similarly to "the God" and "God"; and the words in a twofold sense, the ones proper to humanity being either [derived] from the Father, being parts of Him and neighboring to these—which the word now sets forth for us more clearly, those who have arrived at the Savior and have fixed everything in Him—and thirdly those mentioned before, who consider the sun and moon and stars to be gods and rest in them. But above all, there are also in the lower realm those who are given over to inanimate and dead idols. We find the analogy also in the case of those things pertaining to the Word; for some are adorned by the Word himself; others are adorned by something ^C neighboring and adjacent to Him, which appears to be the primary Word, those who know nothing but Jesus Christ, and him crucified, seeing the Word as flesh; and thirdly, those whom we mentioned a moment ago. But what must one say regarding those who are thought to be in the Word, yet have fallen away not only from the good itself, but even from its traces, and those who partake of it?

^D [alt-version omitted]

^B 4. *He was in the beginning with God.* By the three aforementioned propositions, the evangelist, having taught us three orders, connects the three into one, saying: *He was in the beginning with God.* In the first proposition, we learned in what the Word was, namely, that it was in the beginning; and with whom it was, namely, that it was with God; and who the Word was, namely, that it was God. Since, therefore, he is demonstrating the aforementioned God the Word through the particle “he,” and gathering into a fourth proposition that which is, *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,* he says: *He was in the beginning with God.* ^C However, the name of “the beginning” can also be taken for the beginning of the world, as we learn through these words that the Word is older than things that have come to be from the beginning. For if *in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,* and *He was in the beginning,* it is clearly older than that which was created in the beginning; and the Word is older not only than the firmament and the dry land, but than the heaven and the earth. But perhaps someone might not absurdly inquire why it is not said, “In the beginning was the Word of God; and the Word of God was with God; and the Word of God was that Word.” But it follows that he who seeks why it is not written, “In the beginning was the Word of God,” and what follows, should declare that there are several Words, and perhaps of a different kind. One, indeed, would be the Word of God, another, if I may say so, the word of angels, another again that of men, and so on for the rest of words. And if the term “Word” behaves in this way, the same perhaps must be judged concerning wisdom and justice. But it is absurd to say that there come to be many possessors of this term “Word,” and of this, “wisdom,” and of that, “justice.” We shall be convinced even by the truth that it is by no means necessary for us to seek for several words, and wisdoms, and justices, which are properly so called. For any person whatsoever would confess that there is one truth, ^D nor would anyone dare to say that the truth of God is one thing, and the truth of angels another, and another that of men; for in the nature of beings, the truth concerning each thing is one. But if the truth is one, it is evident that its confirmation and demonstration, which is wisdom, is also rightly understood to be one; for not even that which is called wisdom can rightly maintain its name if the truth is not present. But if the truth is one, and wisdom is one, there must also be one Word, announcing the truth and the wisdom of those things which are simple and open, to those who are capable. Nor do we say this denying that there is truth and wisdom and the Word of God, but showing the utility on account of which the evangelist withheld the word “God,” not writing: “In the beginning was the Word of God.” But the same John also names him with the addition of “God” in the Apocalypse, saying: *And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse, and he that sat upon him is called Faithful and True,* and in righteousness he judges and makes war.

^A His eyes were as a flame of fire: and on his head were many diadems, having a name written, which no man knows but he himself. And he was clothed in a garment sprinkled with blood, and his name is called the Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth proceeds a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treads the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath ^B of God Almighty. And he has on his garment and on his thigh a name written: King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Necessarily and absolutely did John set down the term Word, and also with the addition, the Word of God. For if he had been silent on the one, we would have had occasion to understand it otherwise than in its true sense, and to stray from the truth of this term Word: as if John had written Word absolutely, and had not also said, with the addition, the Word of God, we would not have learned clearly that this Word is the Word of God. Again, if he had said the Word of God, and not Word absolutely, we would have admitted in vain many who are properly so named, forging many Words according to the relation to each of those who use speech and reason. The Apostle and Evangelist, however, rightly describing the things concerning the Word of God in the Apocalypse—being already also a prophet through the Apocalypse—says that he saw the Word of God in the opened heaven, riding upon a white horse. But what the opening of heaven, and the white horse, and the sitting upon it of him who is called the Word of God, points to—that he is intended to be both Word of God and Faithful and True, and is said to judge and make war in righteousness—must be considered, so that we may be more advanced by having understood those things which pertain to the Word of God. ^C I think, therefore, that heaven is closed to the impious and those who bear the image of the earthly, but opened to the just and those who have been adorned with the image of the heavenly. For to the impious, indeed, as they still creep upon the ground and exist in the flesh, the higher things are closed, because they do not understand them, nor, since they do not wish to, are they able to discern their beauty, being prone and not attempting to raise themselves up; whereas the just and excellent, because they have their citizenship in the heavens, contemplate the heavenly things, opened by the key of David—the divine Word opening and manifesting them, in that He rides upon a horse, ^D which is the words that make known the things signified; and a white horse, on account of the clear, bright, and luminous nature of knowledge. He who is called Faithful sits upon the white horse, positioned more firmly and, so to speak, more regally upon the words, which cannot be overturned.

^A moving faster than any horse and outstripping in its momentum every adversary that imitates the Word, or likewise imitates the truth and merely appears as truth. He who sits upon the white horse is called Faithful, not because he possesses faith, but because he is worthy of faith—that is, worthy of being believed. For as Moses attests, the Lord is faithful and true. He is true also in distinction to shadow, type, and image, since such is the Word who is in the opened heaven; for the Word upon earth is not like the Word in heaven, seeing that he became flesh and speaks through shadows, types, and images. Consequently, the multitudes who are thought to believe are instructed ^B by the shadow of the Word, and not by that true Word of God who is in the opened heaven. For this reason Jeremiah says: "Christ the Lord is the spirit of our face, of whom we have said: In his shadow we shall live among the nations." Therefore, this Word of God who is called Faithful is also called true, and he judges and wages war in justice; because he has received from God the faculty to judge and to distribute according to the dignity of each of the beings, by justice itself and by judgment itself. For no one of those who possess justice and the faculty of judging people will be able to imprint within his own soul so perfectly the very forms and ideas of justice and of judging, that he is ^C in no respect inferior to what is justice in itself and judgment in itself; just as a painter, in painting an image, will not be able to express all the properties of the thing depicted. For this reason I think David said: "No one living shall be justified in thy sight." For he did not state it generally—no man, or every angel—but "every living thing," because even if someone should be a participant of life and have utterly shaken off mortality, nonetheless, in comparison with you, he will not be able to be justified, just as he cannot be life itself. And it is not possible that he who is a participant of life, and is on that account named "living," should be Life itself; nor can he who is possessed of justice, and is on that account called "just," ^D be equated in every respect with Justice itself. Now, just as it pertains to the Word of God to judge in justice, so too it pertains to him to wage war in justice: so that, by the very fact that he is said to wage war in this manner, he himself, the Word, and the enemies of justice—once those who are alien to reason are removed and injustice is done away with—may dwell within and justify, expelling the contrary things from the soul of him who, for the sake of salvation, has, so to speak, been taken captive by Christ. But we can perceive more clearly this war of the Word which he wages when he himself discharges the embassy on behalf of truth, while the other—who is not the Word, but feigns himself to be the Word, and likewise the simulated truth, which is not truth but a lie—proclaims itself to be the truth itself. For then the Word, armed against the lie,

^A destroys it with the spirit of his mouth and extinguishes it by the appearance of his advent. And consider whether these things can be understood in a spiritual sense as represented by the Apostle in his Epistle to the Thessalonians. For what is it that is destroyed by the spirit of the mouth of Christ—Christ being the Word, and truth, and wisdom—if not a lie? And what is that which is destroyed by the appearance of the advent of Christ, who is conceived as wisdom and the Word, if not everything that claims to be wisdom, but is instead part of those things with which God catches the unwise in their craftiness, ^B even those who are not wise with the true wisdom? For John speaks most wonderfully in those passages concerning the Word who sits upon the white horse: "And his eyes were as a flame of fire." For as a flame of fire is at once bright and illuminating, and also fiery, and consuming of more material things, so the eyes—if I may say so—of the Word, with which he sees, and with which everyone who participates in him sees, besides perceiving the intelligible things through those things which are within him, also consume and cause to vanish the more material and grosser concepts, since all things that are in any way false flee from the slenderness and subtlety of truth. But it is very orderly ^C that, after he has introduced the Word judging in righteousness and warring in righteousness to judge, and thereupon, after the war, illuminating, it is added that upon his head are many diadems. For if the lie were one and uniform, against which the faithful and true Word, having conquered, received a crown, then it would have been reasonably written that the Word of God, having overcome those who opposed him, was distinguished by one diadem. But now, since there are many lies that claim the truth, against which that Word, waging war, is crowned, there are also many diadems placed upon the head of the victor of all things. Furthermore, overcoming every rebellious action, he is adorned with many crowns for his manifold victory. ^D It is also recorded, after the diadems placed upon his head, that he has a name written which no one knows but he himself; for this living Word alone knows certain things, since no one can contemplate those things which he perceives, because the things that are continually generated are far inferior to his nature. And perhaps even those who participate in that Word alone know, over and against those who do not participate, things that are hidden from non-participants. Moreover, that Word of God is not seen by John as naked while he is borne upon the white horse, but is surrounded by a garment stained with blood, since the Word made flesh is surrounded by traces and signs and, because he became flesh, he also died—for he became flesh in such a way that he poured out his own blood upon the earth when a soldier pierced his side. For no oblivion will ever hold us regarding that passion, and the truth, and the pattern of life he held in our body, even if perhaps we might in some way arrive at the highest and supernal contemplation of the Word and the

^A introduction brought about through him. To this Word of God all the heavenly armies follow, following the Word who leads, and imitating him in all things, and especially in that they likewise have mounted white horses; for all things are manifest to those who understand. And just as pain and sorrow and sighing flee away at the end of things, so I think that obscurity and doubt also flee, when all the mysteries of the wisdom of God are carefully and clearly brought forth into the open. But consider the white horses of those who follow the Word, clothed in white and pure fine linen; and consider whether, since fine linen comes from the earth, the fine linen garments might signify the properties of the languages which are on the earth, with which the voices are clothed, which clearly and purely signify things. These things have been stated at greater length from the Apocalypse, which teaches us what the Word of God is, so that we might consider more accurately and subtly those things that pertain to the Word himself.

5.

This was in the beginning with God.

^A And I believe that it is not false to say of him that he was in the beginning, and that he was in the beginning with God, existing as God alone, since he was also in the beginning, and not existing in the beginning alone, and not being with God alone, because he was in the beginning with God.

6. *All things were made by him.* The particle "by whom" never takes the primary place, but always the secondary; for example, in the Epistle to the Romans: "Paul, a servant," he says, "of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh; who was declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name." For God had promised his own Gospel beforehand by the prophets, as the prophets were ministers and held the word of him for whom the "by whom" is appropriate; and again, God gave grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations to Paul and the rest; and he gave it through Jesus Christ the Savior, who possesses the "by whom." ^B And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the same Paul says: "In these last days he has spoken to us in his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds," teaching us that God made the worlds through the Son, the Only-begotten possessing the "by whom" as the worlds were being made. Thus, therefore, even in this place, if all things were made by the Word, they were not made by the Word, but by One who is greater and mightier than the Word. And who else could this be but the Father? But it must be examined, since the statement "All things were made by him" is true, whether the Holy Spirit was also made by him. For I believe that to one who claims that He is created, and who puts forward the text "All things were made by him," ^C it is necessary to admit that the Holy Spirit was made through the Word, the Word being older than He. But for one who does not wish it to be the case that the Holy Spirit was made through Christ, it follows that he must call Him unbegotten, judging true the things that are in this Gospel. And there will be a third ^D besides the two, the one through whom the Word...

^A has come to be, and holding Him who is unbegotten to be the Father. We are not ignorant, however, that even those who have said that the unbegotten is one, in saying that it is the Father, did not write these things as if the Word were a generated thing or creature, but because He has no cause. ...proceeding out of the Son, and through the Son, from the Father through the Son. And the Spirit of the Son is not as if out of Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. ^A ...supposing Him to be unbegotten, dogmatizing that there does not exist any peculiar 14 essence of the Holy Spirit distinct from the Father and the Son. But perhaps, if one 15 adds further that he thinks the Son is something different from the Father—since it happens that He is the same as the Father—the difference of the Holy Spirit from the Son is admittedly declared in this: "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in the coming one." Yet we, being persuaded that there exist three hypostases—the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit—and believing that there is nothing unbegotten 16 other than the Father, as being more pious and true, we accept that, since all things 17 have come to be through the Word, the Holy Spirit is more honorable than all things, and in rank ^B of all things that have come to be through the Father by Christ. And perhaps this is the cause... [Note: [alt-version omitted]]

...graced by the cutting from [the work of] Ferrarius. We have adopted here the Perionian [version], which we have also corrected in some places. HUETIUS.

14 *Dogmatizing that there does not exist any peculiar essence, etc.* Noetus believed in a single person of the Father and the Son, whose error was later embraced by Sabellius, who confounded the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit. After the Nicene synod, this heresy emerged again and was condemned by the Synod of Antioch, as Hilary reports in his book *De synodis*. ID.

15 *If.* Read *if*.

16 *And that there is nothing unbegotten other than the Father, etc.* Origen, book 1, *De principiis*, cap. 2: "Thus, therefore, the subsistence of the Son is generated *by* Him (the Father): which must especially be accepted by those who confess that nothing is unbegotten, that is, innate, except God the Father alone." This passage is repeated by Pamphilus in his *Apology*. Jerome, ep. 59, to Avitus, speaking of Origen: "Regarding Him (the Holy Spirit)," he says, "while he says he is ignorant of whether He was made or unmade, in later [works] he expressed what he thought about Him, affirming that nothing is unmade except the Father alone." The word *ἀγέννητον*, which Rufinus translates as "unbegotten," certain Latin Fathers have explained as "unmade," and "inoperative," and "without origin." Ancient Greek writers also, whom Athanasius praises in *De synod. Arimin. et Seleuc.* and in his *Oration against the Arians*, used to say, "There is one unmade thing, the Father." For the meaning of the word *ἀγέννητος* is manifold, by which the Arians and Anomoeans led simple people astray for a long time. But Athanasius must be heard, who writes here: "We are not ignorant, however, that those who said there is one unmade thing, namely the Father, did not write so as if the Word were made and created, but because (the Father) has no cause and maker." ^C

...as a harsh [word], we will easily excuse it if we say that the procession of the Holy Spirit is signified here, and in that very way which the ancient Fathers of the Church explained, saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Cyril, in the book *De recta fide*, to Theodosius, writes that the Holy Spirit is, and in the book *De adoratione*. The same he repeats in his epistle *ad reginas*, and in various places. Damascenus, in the book *De fide orthodoxa*, cap. 8: "And the Spirit of the Son, not as if out of Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father." Tertullian, cap. 4 *adversus Praxeam*: "I think the Spirit is from nowhere else than from the Father through the Son." Hilary, book xii *De Trinitate*: "Preserve, I pray, this religion of my faith, that I may always possess the Father, namely Thee, and Thy Son together with Thee, and that I may deserve [to possess] Thy Holy Spirit, who is through Thy Only-Begotten." See also the Council of Florence, and Thomas, I, q. 36, a. 3. Indeed, Paul says, I Cor. viii, 6: "Yet to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him." And Coloss. i, 16: "All things were created through Him and in Him." Inducted by these words, Aetius, the leader of the Anomoeans, believed that there was a difference between the Father and the Son, so that the Father was the primary cause, but the Son was the instrument. Basil chastises this madness in his book *De Spiritu sancto*, and accurately demonstrates that those words *out of whom* and *through whom* are used indiscriminately in the Scriptures; here, however, they were attributed separately to the Father and to the Son, so that the hypostases might be distinguished, even though the same things that are done by the Father are also done by the Son. Cyril must be heard especially in his commentary on this passage of John, where he proves the same thing with many arguments. Moreover, Origen’s word *γενομένων* is general, embracing all things that are in any way, but pertaining to the Holy Spirit and created things in a different way; for what Hilary says, for example, that the Holy Spirit is through the Only-Begotten, Origen says this: "Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit is said to be, this is [to say], he who has from another that he is." And when Athanasius inquires about Him in the Creed, and Epiphanius in *Ancoratus*, cap. 7, this is [to say], "not begotten." Note further that here is ^D *γενητόν*, there *γεννητόν*, which demand different interpretation: for the former is from *γεννάω*, "I beget"; the latter is from *γίνομαι*, "I am, I exist." Thus, formerly the Son was called "begotten" by Catholics, and so on. But *ἀγένητος*, that which was said of the Son, signifies "uncreated": *γενητός*, which Origen said of the Holy Spirit, has its meaning from *γίνομαι*, "I am," and sounds the same as "existing." But the fact that Epiphanius, in his *Heresies* LXIV, c. 8, conjectures that the word *γεντόν* (sic) was used by Origen in the worst sense, I truly desire fairness for him [Origen] there. Nor, however, would I stubbornly maintain that our Adamantius felt wrongly about the Holy Spirit in every respect against Epiphanius and Basil, book *De Spiritu sancto*, cap. 29, as our *Origeniana* makes credible. HUETIUS.

^A of those things which, through Christ, have been brought into existence by the Father. And perhaps this is the cause why he [the Spirit] is not also called the Son of God, seeing that the Only-Begotten alone is by nature the Son from the beginning; the Holy Spirit, it seems, stands in need of Him, with his own hypostasis being served, not only in order that he may exist, but also that he may be wise, and rational, and just, and whatever else one must understand him to be, through participation in those notions of Christ which we mentioned a little earlier.

I think, moreover, that the Holy Spirit, if I may so express it, provides the material of the graces which proceed from God to those who, through him and his communion, are made holy; while the material of the graces, as I have called it, is indeed operated by God, ministered by Christ, but subsists through the Holy Spirit. ^B And what moves me to suppose that matters stand thus is Paul, who writes somewhere concerning graces in these words: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who operates all things in all" (1 Cor. XII, 4-6). But there is a difficulty here, since it is said: "All things were made through Him," and it follows that the Spirit, being a created thing, was made through the Word; how is it, then, that in certain Scriptures he is, as it were, preferred before Christ? In Isaiah, for example, where Christ confesses that He was sent not by the Father alone, but also by the Holy Spirit (for He says: "And now the Lord hath sent me, and His Spirit" [Isa. XLVIII, 16]); and in the Gospel, where He promises forgiveness for the sin committed against Himself, but declares regarding blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that not only is there no forgiveness for the one who has blasphemed against him in this age, but not even in the age to come.

^C And perhaps it is not absolutely because the Holy Spirit is more honorable than Christ that there is no forgiveness for the one who has sinned against him—since all rational beings, to whom mercy is given when they turn away from their sins, participate in Christ—but rather because it is not reasonable that those who have been deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit should obtain mercy when, with such and so great an inward conviction, and with such, so to speak, inspiration, they fall back again into evil and reject the counsels of the Spirit that dwells within them.

But if, according to Isaiah, our Lord says that He was sent by the Father and by His Spirit, it is possible to defend the statement here about the Spirit who sent Christ, not as if He differed by nature, but because of the dispensation of the incarnation of the Son of God, which took place when the Savior humbled Himself ^D below Him. But if anyone in this matter finds fault with the statement that the Savior is humbled below the Holy Spirit, we must answer that He is said to be sent by the Spirit even in this place, not because He differs in nature, but because of the dispensation of the Son of God, our Savior, who lowered Himself in the assumption of humanity.

^A One must point out to him what is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Paul declares that Jesus became lower than the angels on account of the suffering of death; for he says: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor." Or it may be said that creation needed to be liberated from the bondage of corruption, and that the human race needed a blessed and divine power to become incarnate, which would set right the things upon the earth. This task, in a way, devolved upon the Holy Spirit, who, not being able to endure it, brings forward the Savior as the only one who could bear such a prize. And the Father, as the Prince sending the Son, also sends and accompanies Him with the Holy Spirit, who had promised to descend at a certain time to the Son of God and to cooperate in the salvation of men. He accomplished this when, in the bodily form of a dove, He flew to Him after the washing, and, resting upon Him, did not pass by—perhaps because He did this among men who could not constantly bear His majesty. Therefore, John, signifying ^B and speaking concerning the knowledge of who Christ is, narrates not only the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus, but also His abiding within Him. For it is written that John said: "He who sent me to baptize said to me: Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, He is the One who baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire." For it is not said, "Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending" only, as perhaps He might have descended upon others as well, but "descending and abiding upon Him." These things have been examined by us at great length ^C wanting to see more clearly and openly how, if all things were made through Him, the Spirit too was made through the Word, being understood as one of the things inferior to that through which they were made, even if certain words seem to pull us in the opposite direction. But if anyone should bring forward the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where the Savior Himself says: "Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs and carried me away to the great mountain Tabor," one will be perplexed how the mother of Christ could be the Holy Spirit, who was made through the Word, ^D since He is one of the things inferior to the One through whom all things were made; it is understood that He is inferior. These things, then, the Lord spoke to the Jews as a man; but to His disciples, showing His divinity and His majesty, He no longer showed Himself as inferior to the Spirit, but as greater, and as one equal to Him, He would give the Spirit and say: "Receive the Holy Spirit," and "I will send Him," and "He shall glorify me."

— ^A in montem magnum Thabor portavit; is there then any doubt that the Holy Spirit, who was made through the Word, can be the mother of Christ? But these things and this matter are not difficult to interpret. For if he who does the will of the Father who is in heaven is His brother and sister and mother; and if the name of brother of Christ extends not only to the race of men, but even to things more divine than it, then there will be nothing absurd or foreign in the Holy Spirit being called mother, even more so than those who are called Christ’s mother because they do the will of the Father who is in heaven. Toward this, we ought also to inquire into that which is said in the text: "All things were made by Him." By a mental conception, the Word is something else than the life, and "what was made in the Word was life, and the life was the light of men." Is it the case, then, that as all things were made by Him, so also the life was made by Him, which is the light of men, and the other conceptions of the Savior? Or is it necessary to understand that all things were made by Him, with the exception of those things which exist within Him? This seems to me to be the better view. For ^B if it is granted that He made all things, in that the life, which is the light of men, was created, what is to be said of the wisdom which is considered before the Word itself? For surely that which excels the Word is not made through the Word. Wherefore all things were made by the Word of God, except those things which are considered in Christ, because the Father made them in wisdom: "For all things," He says, "in wisdom You have made," (Ps. CIII, 24) not that You made them by means of Wisdom. ^C 7. Let us see also why the following is added: "And without Him was not anything made," even if to some it might appear redundant, that "Without Him was not anything made," which is subjoined to these words: "All things were made by Him." For if whatsoever you may speak of was made by the Word, nothing was made without the Word. However, it does not follow that if something was not made without the Word, all things were made by the Word. For it is possible that, since nothing was made without the Word, not only were all things made by the Word, but some things were made by Him alone. Therefore, it is necessary for us to understand in what way we ought to accept the term "all things," and how the term "nothing." For it is possible, if we have not explained both these expressions, that, if all things were made by the Word, the designation of "all" might be understood to include vice, and every effusion of sin, and all perverse things, so that we might understand that even these were made by the Word, which is false. For there is nothing absurd in the belief that creatures were made by the Word; and it is necessary for us to understand that blessed men have performed all their illustrious deeds and noble actions through the Word; but not, however, their falls.

and sins. Some have therefore explained that vice does not subsist (for ^A it was not from the beginning, nor will it be in the future), and that these things are nothing. And just as certain Gentiles say that genera and species, such as animal and man, are nothing, so these have supposed that everything is nothing which has not received its apparent subsistence either from God or through the Word. And we note whether these things can be shown most accurately from the Scriptures.

Therefore, as far as concerns the meanings of this little word "nothing" and the little word "non-existent," they will appear to be synonyms, since the non-existent is called nothing, and nothing is non-existent. But the Apostle seems not to call things "non-existent" [those] that are in no way or manner existent, but rather [he applies the term] to those that are wicked, considering wicked things to be non-existent: "For," he says, "God called things that were not as though they were." But also Mardochaeus, in the book of Esther according to the Septuagint, calls the enemies of Israel non-existent, saying: "Do not deliver thy sceptre, O Lord, to those that are not." And it is possible to adduce how, because of vice, wicked men are called non-existent from the name of God written in Exodus: "For the Lord said to Moses: ^B 'The Existent, this is My name.'" But for us who pray and are from the Church, the good God says these things, whom the Saviour glorifying says: "No one is good except one, God the Father." Therefore, the good is identical with the Existent. But evil or wickedness is contrary to the good, and the non-existent is contrary to the Existent; from which it follows that evil and wickedness are non-existent. And perhaps this line of reasoning influenced those who say that the devil is not the handiwork of God; for in as much as he is the devil, he is not the handiwork of God; but in as much as it befell him to be a devil—since he was created and there is no created thing apart from our God—he is God’s handiwork: just as if we were to refuse to say that a parricide is God’s work, not denying that he was made by God in so far as he is a man. For since we posit that he received his existence from God in so far as he is a man, we do not posit that he received this from God in so far as he is a murderer. Therefore, all who participate in the Existent (and the saints participate in it) will deservedly be called existent; but those who have turned away from participation in the Existent have, by being deprived of the Existent, become non-existent. We have mentioned beforehand that there is synonymy between the non-existent and nothing; and for this reason ^C the non-existent are nothing, and all wickedness is nothing, since it does not even attain existence; and nothing is called— ^D and for this reason the adversary asks: "Whence did envy proceed? For if you answer 'from the devil,' why did the devil exist at all? If he was made, who created him must be seen as the author of evil. But God cannot be the cause of evil; therefore, the devil was produced by no one." Origen here designates the Marcionites and other fellow-initiates of theirs, who used to posit three principles: one of which was God, the good and unknown Father of Christ; another the Creator and known; and the third, between them, the devil. One should read Epiphanius, Heresy XLII, chapter 3.

^A those who flee from the participation of being, because they are deprived of being, have been made non-existent. We said, however, above that "being" and "nothing" are synonymous and univocal; and for this reason that which does not exist is "nothing," and every vice also is "nothing," since it is non-being; and "nothing" is what is called that which has been made without the Word, not being enumerated along with the word "all." And we indeed, to the best of our ability, have shown what are the things "all" made through the Word, and what is that which has been made without him—which, however, never existed, and for this reason is called "nothing."

8. I think that Heracleon, who is said to be a disciple of Valentinus, ^B when he was discoursing on this, "All things were made through him," 17 forcedly and without testimony exempted the whole world and the things in it, excluding, as far as his hypothesis allows, the most excellent things of the world and those contained in it. For he says that neither the aeon nor the things in the aeon were made through the Word; things which he supposes to have existed before the Word. And standing even more shamelessly against the passage, "And without him was made not even one thing," 18 and not even fearing the saying, "Do not add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar," 19 he adds to "not even one," the words, "of those in the world and in the creation." ^C And since it is manifest that the things said by him are highly forced and proclaimed contrary to the evidence, if those things which he himself thinks are divine are excluded from the "all," and those things which, as he supposes, are altogether corruptible are properly called "all," we must not spend time in refuting those things which carry their own absurdity on their face. Such is that which, when Scripture says, "And without him was made nothing," he himself adds without the authority of Scripture: "of those things that are in the world and in creation," which he asserts not even with probability, but thinks himself worthy to be believed just like prophets or apostles, who with authority and blamelessly left behind salutary writings for their peers and their descendants. ^D Moreover, he also misinterpreted this: "All things were made through him," saying that the Word is he who provided the cause of the generation of the world to the Creator, not the one from whom, or by whom, but the one through whom, interpreting the written phrase according to usage. For if, as he thinks, the truth of the matters were so, it ought to have been written that all things were made through the Creator by the Word, and not conversely through the Word by the Creator. And we indeed, having used the particle "through whom," just as usage does, have not set forth our interpretation without a witness. But he, beyond the fact that he does not confirm his own opinion from the divine Scriptures, [alt-version omitted]

^A appears to have suspected the truth, yet he impudently opposed it, saying: "For the Word did not create by himself, as if by another working" (so that the little word *through whom* might be understood in that way), "but while He himself was working, another was doing it." However, it is not the present time to prove that the Artificer and Maker of the world created the world, having not been made a minister of the Word, and to show that the Word, having become a minister of the Artificer, fashioned the world. For according to the prophet David: ^B "God said, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created." For the unbegotten God commanded the Firstborn of every creature, and they were created, not only the world and what is in it, but also all other things, "whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: for all things were created by Him and for Him; and He is before all things."

9. As for the saying: "Without Him was not anything made," the discourse concerning vice must not be left unexamined; for although it may seem very inconsistent and dissimilar, I think that almost nothing should be easily despised. For it must be asked whether vice, too, was made through the [logon] (that is, the reason), now taking [logon] attentively and diligently for that which is in each person, since it too is unbegotten in individuals from Him who was in the beginning. The Apostle therefore says: ^C "Without the law sin is dead," and he adds: "But when the commandment came, sin revived," teaching universally concerning sin that sin itself has no operation before the law and commandment come. But how, when the [logos] is law and commandment, and there would be no sin if the law did not exist ("for sin is not imputed when there is no law"), sin also, in turn, would not exist if the [logos] were not there? For "If I had not come," He says, "and spoken to them, they would not have sin." For every pretext is taken away from him who wishes to defend himself concerning sin, since he did not obey the word and reason existing in him and showing him what must be done. ^D Hence all things, perhaps even the worse things themselves, have been made through reason, and without it (as we interpret the little word "nothing" more simply) nothing was made. Nor is it at all to be charged to reason as a fault if all things have been made through it, and without it nothing was made; just as it is not to be charged to the teacher as a fault who has shown the necessary things to the learner, since because of his instructions no place for defense is left to the one sinning, as if he had been ignorant—this especially if we consider the teacher to be inseparable from the learner: for just as a teacher is inseparable from the learner, so reason, naturally existing in each one who is possessed of reason, always suggesting what is to be done, even if...

we disobey his precepts by giving ourselves over to pleasures and neglecting his best counsel. Just as we abuse the eye given to us to minister to good things by looking at what we should not, and do the same with our hearing when we lend our attention to judging songs and forbidden things—thus bringing insult upon the reason that is within us, and not using it where we ought—we transgress the law that resides in sinners for judgment, and therefore it judges him who did not prefer it above all things. ^B Whence it is also said: "The word which I have spoken, the same shall judge you", as if to say, "I, the Word who always resound within you, shall myself condemn you, who have left no room for any defense." Yet this interpretation will seem too forced if we understand the Word that was in the beginning with God, who is God, as one thing, and consider the Word within us as another, since we have said that "all things were made through him" not only regarding the principal works of creation, but also regarding all things done by those who are partakers of reason, without which Word we commit no sin. And it must be sought whether the word within us is to be called the same as the Word who was in the beginning and with God and who is God, especially since the Apostle does not seem to teach that this one is different from the Word who was in the beginning with God, [saying]: "Do not say in your heart: Who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down; or, who shall descend into the abyss? that is, to bring Christ up from the dead." But what does Scripture say? "The word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart." ^C "What has been made in him was life, and the life was the light of men." There are certain dogmas among the Greeks called paradoxes, which attribute the vastest number of things to their "wise man," along with some demonstration or apparent demonstration. They claim, for instance, that only the wise man is a priest—because only the wise man possesses the knowledge of divine worship; and also that only the wise man is free, as one who has received authorization for self-determined action from the divine law, having defined liberty as legitimate permission. And what need is there for us to speak now of these things called paradoxes, when much labor is spent upon them, and the things enunciated by them as paradoxes require collation with the will of Scripture, so that we might be able to show in what instances the doctrine of piety is in harmony ^D and in what instances it wills the contrary to what is said by them? For us, mention of these has been made while inquiring into "What has been made in him was life," because one who follows Scripture can show many things of this kind which have, as it were, the form of paradoxes: and which are even—if there is need to say what is more paradoxical—more paradoxical than what is said by them. For if we consider the Word who was in the beginning, the Word who was with God, the Word who is God, perhaps we shall be able to show that only his, according to such...

^A one who participates in reason can be said to be—to affirm that only the saint is rational. Again, if we understand the life which came to be in the Word, from him who says: "I am the life," we shall say that no one outside of the faith of Christ is living, that all are dead who do not live to God, and that their living is a living of sin, and for this reason, so to speak, their living amounts to death. But observe whether the divine Scriptures do not frequently set this forth, where the Savior says: "Have you not read what was spoken at the bush: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living," and: "No living man shall be justified in your sight." But what must we say about the God or the Savior himself? For it is doubted as to which of them that voice belongs which says in the prophets: "I live, says the Lord." ^B

11. And first let us look at the saying: "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living," which is of equal force to this: He is not the God of sinners, but the God of the saints. For it is a great gift to the patriarchs that God applied their nomenclature in place of His own name to His own proper appellation as God; just as Paul also says: "Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God." Therefore He is the God of the fathers and of all the saints; and nowhere could you find it written that God is the God of any of the impious. If, therefore, God is of the saints, and is called the God of the living, the saints are living and the living are saints; since there is no saint outside of the living, nor is there any living man who, with that very life, does not also possess this: to be a saint. The same is to be thought of the saying: ^C "I shall be glad before the Lord in the land of the living"; that is to say, as if he said in the order of the saints, or in the place of the saints, since the joy of the mind properly exists either in the order or in the place of the saints; and as if no one were to fully possess it who has not attained to the order of the saints or the place of the saints, to which everyone must approach who has perceived in this life the shadow as it were and image of true joy. But furthermore, the saying: "No living man shall be justified before God," declares that no one, however blessed, if he is compared with God and His justice, shall be justified, just as if we were to mention such a thing with another example: No lamp will shine before the sun; for every lamp will indeed shine, but only when it is not illuminated by the sun. Every living man will indeed be justified, but he will not be justified before God when he is compared with those who dwell in the infernal regions ^D and are held by darkness, among whom their light will shine. And see whether in this way we should also understand that which is in the Gospel: "Let your light shine before men," for it does not say: "Let your light shine before God."

For if He were commanding this, He would be giving an impossible commandment, just as if He were giving a commandment to animate lamps that their light should shine before the sun. Not only, therefore, will the common multitude of living beings not be justified before God, but not even those who, among living beings, are superior to the lesser; and what is even more, the collective righteousness of all living beings, in comparison with God, will not be justified, just as if I were to say of lamps which are upon the earth at night that, when gathered together, they could not shine in comparison with the rays of this sun. ^B By way of progression, we must also understand from what has been said the following: "I live, says the Lord." Perhaps "to live" in the proper sense, especially from what has been said about living, belongs to God alone. And see whether, for this reason, the Apostle, having considered the excellence of the life of God which is in the extreme, and understanding in a way worthy of God the words, "I live, says the Lord," was able to say of God: "Who alone has immortality," with no one among those who live besides God possessing a life that is entirely unchangeable and unalterable. And why do we doubt regarding the others, when not even Christ possessed the immortality of the Father? For He tasted death for everyone.

12. But as we examine the things concerning the life of God, and the life which is Christ, and those who live in their own region, and also those who live but are not justified before God, consequentially subjoining to these the words, "Who alone has immortality," we shall likewise take up what is implied, namely, that whatever you might call rational does not possess blessedness substantially—as if it were an inseparable accident. For if it possessed blessedness and the preeminent life as something inseparable, how would that which is said of God, "Who alone has immortality," still be true? One must, however, know that the Savior is to Himself not some things, but to others, while some things He is to both Himself and others; and one must inquire whether He has certain things for Himself and for no one else. ^C For clearly He is a shepherd to others, not as those who are shepherds among men, drawing benefit to himself from the fact that he is pasturing—unless perhaps one might consider that, because of philanthropy, he reckons the benefit of those who are pastured to be his own—but He is likewise a Way to others, and a Gate, and it is also acknowledged that He is a Rod; but to Himself and to others He is Wisdom, and perhaps also [the Word]. And one must inquire whether, being as He is in Himself a system of contemplations, inasmuch as He is Wisdom, there are certain contemplations that are inaccessible to the rest of the created nature alongside Him, which He knows for Himself. And we must not leave an unexamined argument on account of our reverence for the Holy Spirit; for the fact that He, too, is a disciple to Himself is clear from what is said concerning the Paraclete and the Holy Spirit, that "He shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you." And if, being a disciple, He receives all things, he who gazes intently upon the ^D

Father ^A beginning with the Son knows and seeks them more diligently. If, therefore, the Savior is sometimes life to others, and sometimes perhaps in some way to Himself, and either to no one, or to one, or to few, in so far as the life that was made in the Word is life, it must be examined whether it is life to Himself and to others, or to others, and to these specific others. If then life and the light of men are the same, for he says: "And that which was made in Him was life, and the life was the light of men," and the light of men is the light of certain people, and this is not of all rational beings, as far as the word "men" being placed there is concerned, but it is the light of men; there would also be the life of men, of whom it is also the light; and in so far as it is life, the Savior might be said to be life not to Himself, but to others, of whom He is also the light. But this life comes to be upon the Word, existing inseparably from Him once it has come to be; for the Word ^B or reason must pre-exist in the soul, which purges it, so that, after this, and the purgation proceeding from Him, every mortification and infirmity having been altogether removed, a pure and sincere life may be engendered in everyone who has made himself capable of the Word, in so far as He is God.

13. Furthermore, two things must be observed, and their difference accurately examined: first, that "The Word [id est Sermo] is in the beginning"; second, that "life is in the Word." But the Word was not *made* in the beginning, for there was no time when the beginning was without the Word and reason, for which reason it is said: "In the beginning was the Word." But life was not in the Word, but life *was made*, if indeed the light of men is life. For when man did not yet exist, neither was the light of ^C men present, the light of men being understood according to its relation to humanity. Let no one press us, thinking that we are stating these things temporally, since the order requires the first, and the second, and what follows, even if no time is found when the ternary or quaternary number were not at all substrated by the Word. Just as, then, "All things were made through Him," and not "all things were through Him," and "without Him was made nothing, not without Him was nothing," so "that which was made in Him, not that which was in Him, was life." And again, not "that which was made in the beginning was the Word," but "what was in the beginning, the Word was." Some manuscripts, however, and perhaps not without probability, have: "That which was made, in Him is life." ^D But if life is the same as the light of men, no one who is in darkness lives, and no one of the living is in darkness, since everyone who lives is also in the light, and everyone who is in the light also lives, so that the only one, and every living person, is a son of light; but the son of light is he whose works shine before men.

^A Once more, since from these things that we have discussed, their contraries can be understood, ^B and the discussion is about the life and light of men—and the contrary to life is death, and the contrary to the light of men is the darkness of men—it is possible to see that one who happens to be in the darkness of men is in death, and he who performs the works of death is nowhere else but in darkness. But he who remembers God, if we consider what it means to remember Him, is not in death, according to the saying: "In death there is no remembrance of thee." ^C Whether the darkness of men or death are such by nature, or not, is a matter for another discussion: "We were once darkness, but now [we are] light in the Lord," even if we are already holy and spiritual to the greatest possible degree. Whoever was once darkness became, like Paul, capable and apt to become light in the Lord. But I do not know if, according to the opinion of those who posit spiritual natures, like Paul and the holy apostles, it is consistent for a spiritual being to have once been darkness and then afterward to have become light; for if the spiritual being was once darkness, what is the earthly [being]? But if it is true that it became light from darkness, what is the rationale for why not all darkness can become light? For if it were not said of Paul, "We were once in darkness, now however [we are] light in the Lord," ^D and if it were not held concerning the natures they think are lost, that they were darkness or are darkness, the hypothesis concerning natures might have had some place. But now Paul says that he was once darkness, and now [is] light in the Lord, as if it were possible for darkness to be changed into light. It is not difficult, however, for one who examines this carefully to discern from the things said the potential for the change of each towards the better or the worse, concerning the entirety of this darkness of men and this death that exists in the darkness of men.

15. But Heracleon, coming to this passage, very violently interprets "What has been created in Him was life" ^C as "in Him, that is, in spiritual men," as if he supposed the Word and spiritual men to be the same thing. ^D Even if he has not said this clearly, yet, as if providing a reason, he says: "For He provided them their first formation, with regards to their origin, having brought to form and illumination and [his] own delineation that which was passed over by another, and having shown it." But he did not observe that Paul, when speaking of spiritual beings, omitted to call them men: "For the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him; but the spiritual man judges all things." For we do not say that he omitted the name of "man" regarding the spiritual being without reason; for the spiritual being is something more excellent than man, i.e., than he who is characterized by soul or body or both.

^A And at the same time he declares the things pertaining to such a hypothesis without even a manifest proof, being unable to reach even the slightest persuasion in his discourse concerning these matters. And so much for him.

16. But let us also inquire into this, whether the life was the light of men only, and not rather of everyone existing in blessedness. For if "life" and "light of men" were the same, and if Christ's light were of men only, then the life would also be of men only: but to suppose this is at once foolish and impious, when other Scriptures testify against this understanding, ^B since when we progress, we shall be equal to the angels. But the doubt is to be solved thus: if something is said to be of some things, it does not immediately follow that it pertains only to those of whom it is said. Thus, therefore, if it is called the light of men, it is not the light of men only; for it could have been added, "the life was the light of ^C men only." For the light of men can also be the light of others beside men; just as it is possible for these animals and these plants to be food for men, and yet the same things can be food for others beside men. This example is taken from custom; but it is worthy that we should compare a similar one from the Scriptures produced by the Spirit of God. In this place, then, we inquire whether anything prevents the light of men from also being the light of others, maintaining that it is not the case that, because it is called "the light of men," it is therefore already excluded from being light also for others who are more excellent than men, or similar to men. For since it is written that God is the God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, whoever might wish, because it is said, "the life was the light of men," to suppose that the light pertains to no one else but men, ought in the same way to suppose that God is the God of no one else but of these three fathers only. But there is also the God of Elijah, and, as Judith says, of her father Simeon, and also the God of the Hebrews. Therefore, by parity of reasoning, if nothing prevents Him from being the God of others also, nothing prevents the light of men from being light also for others beside men.

17. Moreover, another person, ^D making use of, "Let us make man according to our image and likeness," says that everything that is made according to the image and likeness of God is a man, using countless examples in this matter to show that it makes no difference to Scripture whether it says man or angel; for the appellation of angel and man is applied to the same subject, just as in the case of those who were entertained by

Abraham, and those two who were in Sodom, and throughout the whole series of Scripture, they are sometimes called men and sometimes angels. ^A However, he who thinks this will say that, just as there are angels among those who are admittedly men, as Zacharias says: "I am an angel of God with you, says the Lord Almighty," and John, of whom it is written: "Behold, I send my angel before your face," so also the angels of God are termed men on account of this work, and not called so because of their nature. Furthermore, he will the more confirm this, because the names among the higher powers are not names of the natures of living creatures, but of orders, which this or that rational nature has obtained from God; for a throne is not a species of living creature, ^B nor is a principality, nor lordship, nor power, but they are names of things, over which those so addressed have been set, whose subject is no other than man, and to which subject it happens to be a throne, or a lordship, or a principality, or a power. And in the Book of Joshua the son of Nun, it is written: "A man appeared to Joshua himself in Jericho, who says: 'I am the captain of the host of the power of the Lord, now I have come.'" Accordingly, therefore, as it can be interpreted with equal validity, the light of men is also the light of everyone who is endowed with reason, inasmuch as he is a man, being made in the image and likeness of God. Yet it is the same thing, named in three ways: the light of men, and simply Light, and the true light. Now, as the light of men, it is—as has been demonstrated beforehand—because ^C nothing prevents our understanding the light to be also of others besides man, or of all rational beings, because they are called men for having been made in the image and likeness of God.

Since, however, the Saviour is termed light simply in this passage, but in the Catholic Epistle of the same John, God is said to be light, someone might think that it is also inferred from this that the Father does not differ in substance from the Son; but whoever has observed more carefully and has spoken more correctly, will say that it is not the same thing—the light which shines in darkness and is not comprehended by it, and the light in which there is no darkness at all. For the light that shines in the darkness, as it were, comes upon the darkness and, being pursued by it, and, if I may so say, being conspired against, is not comprehended; but the light in which there is no darkness neither shines in the darkness, nor is it at all pursued by it, so that it may be marked down as the victor, ^D 18. as it is not comprehended by the one pursuing it. For the third point being made thus...

^A that saying, "the true light," ^B concerns the Word; for the Father of the God of truth is greater and more than truth; and the Father, being better than wisdom and distinct from wisdom, in this measure surpasses the fact of being the true light. We shall learn that both the Father and the Son are two lights, more clearly from David, when he says in the thirty-fifth Psalm: "In thy light we shall see light." This same "light of men" shining in the darkness, "the true light," is declared in the following verses of the Gospel to be the light of the world, ^C as Jesus says: "I am the light of the world." Nor shall we allow this to be unnoted, that when it was possible to write: "What has been made in him was the light of men, and the light of men was life," he has done the reverse; for he places "life" before the "light of men," even though "life" and "light of men" are the same thing, because it occurs to us to think of those who share in that life which is the light of men as first living a blessed and designated life, and then being illuminated; ^D for it must be supposed that to live is necessary, so that the living one may become illuminated; and it would not follow for one who is not yet conceived to be living to have been illuminated, and for life to be superadded to the illumination. For although "life" and "light of men" are the same, the concepts are nonetheless taken in one way and another. This "light of men" is also called the light of the nations by the prophet Isaiah, according to the words: "Behold I have set you as a covenant of the race, as a light of the nations"; and trusting in this light, David says in the twenty-sixth Psalm: "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?"

19. Now, against those who contrive a mythology of aeons in pairings, and imagine that the Word and Life have been produced and brought forth by Mind and Truth, it is not absurd to raise such difficulties. For how does the Life, which according to them is the consort of the Word, come to be in the consort? For it says: "What has been made in him" (that is, in the aforementioned Word) "was life." Let them tell us, therefore, how the Life that is the consort of the Word has come to be in the Word, and how the Life of the Word is rather the light of men. It is likely that those who are more good-willed, being overturned in their inquiries and struck by this objection, will cross-examine us, and they themselves will be troubled if we do not find the reason why "the Word" is not called the light of men, but "the Life that has been made in the Word." To them we shall answer such things: that "Life" here is not said to be that which is commonly participated in by rational and irrational beings, but that which is superadded to the Word in us, who is being completed by the participation.

^A And perhaps this life is to some, in potentiality and not in actuality, a light—to those who are not ambitious to examine the things of knowledge—but to others, who have become so in actuality, it is a light. It is clear that this happens to those who fulfill what was commanded by Paul: "Zealously seek the better gifts," and greater than the gifts, and placed before all, is what is the word of wisdom; and this is followed by the word of knowledge. But concerning the difference between them, when the things signified by wisdom and knowledge are placed beside one another, it is not the time to speak of this at present.

20. "And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not." ^B Still concerning the light of men, since it was previously set forth, we inquire, and I think also concerning its opposite, which is called darkness; but if (82) it be tested as to the men, I say that perhaps the light of men is a genus of two specific realities; and likewise also their darkness. For it happens that he who has possessed the light of men, and has been a participant in its rays, performs the works of light and, being illuminated, knows the light of knowledge; and the analogy must be thought of likewise from the opposites—of evil actions and of the opinionated knowledge, which is not according to truth, having the rationale of darkness. And that the holy word knows practical things as light, Isaiah says: "Because thy commandments are light upon the earth"; and David in the eighteenth psalm: "The commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes." ^C But that there is a light of knowledge beside the commandments, we find in one of the Twelve: "Sow for yourselves unto righteousness, reap for the fruit of life, illuminate for yourselves the light of knowledge." For as if there were another light of knowledge besides the commandments, it is said, "Illuminate for yourselves a light," not simply a light, but what kind of light? That of knowledge. For if every light which a man illuminates for himself were the light of knowledge, it would have been in vain that it was added, "Illuminate for yourselves a light of knowledge." ^D Again, that darkness is taken for evil works, the same John teaches in his Epistle, saying: "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth"; and again: "He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now"; and further: "He that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes." For that which is walking in darkness…

^A manifests a blameworthy action. And is not hating one's brother a falling away from what is properly called knowledge? That he who is ignorant of divine things walks in darkness precisely because of this ignorance, David says: "They have not known, nor have they understood; they walk in darkness." But observe the statement: "God is light, and there is no darkness in Him." Unless it is said this way for Him to result in there being not one darkness, but either on account of the genus of darkness being twofold, or because every species of darkness possesses many wicked actions and many false dogmas—so there are many darknesses, none of which is in God. For it would not have been said of a holy man, as the Savior says: "Ye are the light of the world," unless the holy one is the light of the world, and there is no darkness in Him.

^B Someone might ask: If it is stated of the Father that "there is no darkness in Him," how are we to speak of this as something exceptional and primary in Him, when we also think of the Savior as being altogether impeccable, so that one could also say of Him that He is light, and there is no darkness in Him? We have already shown the difference in part above; but we shall now add something even more daring than those points: that if the Father made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us—if God made Christ sin for our sake—it could not be said of Him: "There is no darkness in Him." ^C Even if Jesus, "in the likeness of sinful flesh," condemned sin "for sin" because He assumed the likeness of sinful flesh, still, these things could not be said of Him in a strictly absolute sense, namely, that no darkness is in Him. We further add that He took our infirmities and bore our diseases—the infirmities and diseases of the hidden man of our heart. Because He took these infirmities and diseases away from us, He confesses that His soul is sorrowful and troubled, and it is written in Zechariah that He was clothed in filthy garments; and since He was to cast these off, they are said to be sins. He adds, therefore, in that same place: "Behold, I have taken away thy sins." For because He Himself received into Himself the sins of the people who believe in Him, He says frequently: "Far from my salvation are the words of my offenses," and "Thou hast known my foolishness, and my faults are not hidden from Thee."

Let no one suspect ^D that we say these things while being irreverent toward the Christ of God. For by the same reasoning as the Father alone has immortality—since our Lord, out of love for the human race, underwent death on our behalf—by this same reasoning, the Father alone possesses the quality that "there is no darkness in Him," whereas Christ, in order to benefit men, has taken our darknesses upon Himself, so that by His power He might destroy our death and banish from the soul

the darkness, that the word spoken by Isaiah might be fulfilled: "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." And this light, which was in the Word, being also life, shines in the darkness of our souls; and it has arrived where the rulers of the darkness of this world are, who, because they struggle against the human race, strive to lead into darkness those who do not stand in every way, so that they who are enlightened by the light might be called sons of the light. And while this light shines in the darkness, it is indeed pursued by it, but it is not apprehended. But if anyone should think that we are adding what is not written, namely that the light is pursued by the darkness, let him hear that the saying, "The darkness apprehended it not," would be said in vain if the darkness did not pursue the light. But as those who have a mind capable of following the consequences of written things—where things are thought to have been omitted—John wrote: "The darkness apprehended it not." For if it did not apprehend, it pursued and did not apprehend; and that the darkness did pursue the light is clear, both from what the Savior has suffered, and from those who have accepted His teachings—His own children—the darkness working against the sons of light and desiring to drive the light away from men. But since "if God is for us," no one, even if he wishes, shall be able to prevail against us, by as much as they humbled themselves, by so much more ^B they increased and grew very strong. And in two ways the darkness has not apprehended the light: either because the light left it far behind, as the darkness, because of its own slowness, could not even in the least follow the one so preeminent in the speed and swiftness of its course; or because, if anywhere the darkness wished to lay an ambush for the light, and the light, by a certain plan and through the economy, waited for it as it approached, the darkness vanished as soon as it drew near to the light. Yet in both ways the darkness has not apprehended the light.

22. It is necessary, however, as we have come to these points, to note that it is by no means the case that, if "darkness" is mentioned anywhere, it is taken in the worse sense; for at times it is written even in the better sense. This, those who are heterodox, not distinguishing, and accepting most blasphemous dogmas concerning the Creator, have departed from Him, giving themselves over to the figments of myths. How, then, and when, and whether the name of "darkness" is taken in a better sense, must now be shown. Darkness, mist, and storm are said to be about God in Exodus, and in the seventeenth Psalm: "He put darkness as His secret place; His tabernacle round about Him; dark water in the clouds of the air." For if anyone considers the multitude of contemplations and of the knowledge of God, which is ungraspable by human nature, and perhaps also by others who have been begotten, he will know how it is concerning God ^C as for darkness, according to the fact that the rich Word concerning Him, in which darkness...

^A He has set His concealment, in that the things concerning Him are unknown, being incomprehensible, having done this. But if anyone stumbles at such interpretations, let them be brought to reconsider by both the dark words and the dark, hidden, and invisible treasures given by God to Christ; for I do not think the dark treasures revealed through Christ are anything else. "He made darkness His hiding-place," and: "The holy man will understand a parable and a dark saying." Consider, then, if it is for this reason that the Savior says to the disciples: "Therefore, what you have heard in the darkness, speak in the light." For the mysteries delivered to them, difficult ^B to know and obscure, and in a secret place, not in a frequent assembly, He commands them, having been illuminated—and for this reason being called "in the light"—to declare to all who are becoming light. I would say something even more paradoxical concerning the praised darkness, namely, that it hastens toward the light and apprehends it, and—because it was previously unknown as darkness to one not seeing its power—it is so transformed that the one who has learned it is shown to have become light, that which was once known to him as darkness.

24. "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." A person understanding the word "sent" more accurately (since one who is sent is sent from somewhere to somewhere) ^C will ask from where John was sent and to where. While it is clear where—historically, to Israel and those willing to hear him dwelling in the wilderness of Judea and baptizing at the river Jordan (and according to a deeper reason, into the world, with "world" being understood as this terrestrial location where humans are)—one will examine how the particle "from where" must be interpreted. Furthermore, scrutinizing the phrase more deeply, one might perhaps assert that, just as it is written concerning Adam, "And the Lord God sent him forth from the paradise of delight, to till the ground from which he was taken," so also was John ^D sent, either from heaven, or from paradise, or from some other place, from somewhere at last, to this location upon the earth; and he was sent "that he might bear witness to the light."

However, this discourse has a not inconsiderable objection, since it is written in Isaiah: "Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people?" and the prophet, answering, says: "Behold, I am here, send me." For he who opposes this deeper evident meaning will say that, just as Isaiah was sent, not from another place to this world, but after he saw the Lord sitting upon [a throne...]

high and lifted up, in order to say to the people: “Hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand,” and the rest; so also John, with the beginning of his mission left silent, having an analogy to the mission of Isaiah, is sent to baptize and to prepare for the Lord a people made ready, and to bear witness concerning the light.

When these things have been said in this way, such solutions ^B are brought forward for the first argument, drawing agreement to that which is more deeply conceived concerning John; for from the same passage it is subjoined: “This man came for testimony, that he might bear witness concerning the light.” For if he came, he came from somewhere. And it must be said to the one who reluctantly admits what is said in the following by John, after he ^B saw the Holy Spirit descending as a dove upon the Savior; for he says: “He who sent me to baptize in water, he said to me: Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit and fire.” For when did He who sent him command this? But it is probable to answer this question that, whenever He was sending him to begin to baptize, then the One speaking to him said this word.

And still more astonishing for the one ^C who assumes that John was sent from another place—having no other reason for his coming into life than “the witness concerning the light”—is his being filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb, as it is told by Gabriel, who announced to Zechariah the birth of John and to Mary the arrival of our Savior among men; and also that: “For behold, as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.” For he who is on his guard against doing anything unjustly, ^C or by chance, or by divine lot, must necessarily accept that John’s soul was older than his body, and, having subsisted beforehand, had been sent for the ministry of bearing witness to the light.

To these things, also, one must not neglect that: “This is Elijah who is to come.” But if the general doctrine concerning the soul prevails—as not being sown together with the body, but existing before it, and because of various causes putting on flesh and blood—the word “sent from God” ^D will no longer seem to be said as something extraordinary concerning John. For even the most wicked of all, the man of sin, the son of perdition, is said by Paul to be sent by God; for "For this reason," he says, "God sends to them a working of error, to believe the lie, that all might be judged who have not believed the truth, but have taken pleasure in unrighteousness."

But see if we shall be able to solve the question sought this way, that, just as every man, simply because he was created by God, is a man of God; but none [...]

^A is called a man of God, except he who is devoted to God, just as Elias and those who are written in the Scriptures as men of God; so, in a more general sense, every man can be said to be sent by God, but, properly speaking, none is sent by God other than he who has come into this life for a divine ministry and for the salvation of the human race. We do not, therefore, find that anyone is "sent" by God, unless it is specified of the saints: concerning Isaiah, as we have mentioned before; concerning Jeremiah, indeed: "To all to whom I shall send thee, thou shalt go" (Jer. 1, 7); concerning Ezekiel also: "Behold, I send thee unto nations that are rebellious and disobedient to me" (Ezech. 2, 3). But these examples of a mission will not seem to have been taken to support our argument, since we are inquiring about the mission which happens into this life, and those passages do not openly state that someone existing outside this life has been sent into this life. Yet, even so, there is no absurdity in transferring the argument to the matter we are investigating, if we say that, just as God is said to send only the saints of whom we have spoken, so also it must be understood ^B concerning those who are sent into this life.

25. And since we are dealing completely with the subject of John, investigating his mission, we shall not inappropriately put forward our opinion concerning him. For since we read the prophecy about him: "Behold, I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee" (Malach. 3, 1), we note whether by chance he, being one of the holy angels, is sent down as a forerunner for the ministry of our Savior. And certainly it is nothing wonderful if the Firstborn of every creature, who was incarnate out of love for mankind, should have had some who were emulators and imitators of Christ, to whom it was sweet to serve, by the same similitude of body, the kindness which He had shown toward them. But whom would it not move to see him leaping for joy while he was still in ^C his mother’s womb, as if excelling the common nature of men? And if anyone admits the prayer of Joseph, written in those books which are called the apocrypha among the Hebrews, he will take this dogma, even clearly stated, from there; as if those who from the beginning have had something excellent beyond other men, being far better than the rest of souls, because they were angels, had descended into human nature. Jacob therefore says: "For he who speaks to you, I am Jacob, and Israel, I am an angel of God, and a primary spirit, and Abraham and Isaac were created before every work." ^D

is called ^A by men Jacob, but my name is Israel, who am called Israel by God, a man who sees God, since I am the firstborn of every living creature made alive by God." And he adds: "But when I was coming from Mesopotamia of Syria, Uriel the angel of God went forth and said that he had descended to the earth and dwelt among men; and because I was called by the name Jacob, he was jealous, and fought with me, and wrestled with me, saying that his name would take precedence over mine and over every angel. And I asked him his name, and what number he was among the sons of God. 'Are you not Uriel, the eighth from me, and I Israel, an archangel of the power of the Lord, and prince of the captains of the host among the sons of God? Am I not Israel, the first minister in the person of God, and did I not call upon my God by an unquenchable name?'" For it is probable that these things were truly said by Jacob, and on account of this were written, and that even the passage, "In the womb he supplanted his brother" (Hos. XII, 3), came to pass wisely. But consider whether the famous question concerning Jacob and Esau has a solution, since "when the children were not yet born, and had done neither good nor evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto him, The elder shall serve the younger, as it is written: Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid!" (Rom. IX, 11 seq.). Since it was said, "When they were not yet born, and had done neither good nor evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of God that calleth," if we do not ^B recur to deeds prior to this life, how will it be true that there is no unrighteousness with God, if the elder serves the younger and is hated before he has done anything worthy of servitude or of being hated? But we have digressed further by taking up the account concerning Jacob, and bringing forward to ourselves as a witness a Scripture not so easily to be despised, so that the speech concerning John might be more convincing, establishing him, according to the voice of Isaiah, to have been an angel existing in a body, for the sake of testifying to the light. And these things indeed concern John the man.

26. But I consider that, just as in us voice and reason differ, although sometimes a voice that signifies nothing can be uttered without reason, and it is possible for reason to be reported to the mind without a voice ^C (as when we discourse within ourselves), so also the Savior, according to a certain concept, being Reason—as far as John bears analogy to this—just as the Savior, being the Word, makes manifest the hidden mysteries of the Father, so John, as a voice, is sent before Him who is the Word to announce to men the coming of the Word. Indeed, the Savior is the Word, and John is the voice; and just as the voice is perceived by the ears and then the meaning of the word is received by the understanding, so the Savior, as the Word, is the object of the perception of the soul, while John, as the voice, is the herald of the Word. And the angel who came in the body, who is John, is the voice that precedes the Word, and in a certain manner is joined to Him, as the voice is to the word. ^D

δια- ^A φέρει καὶ τούτου ὁ Ἰωάννης, ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἀναλογίαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ τυγχάνοντος λόγου φωνὴ ὤν. Ἐπὶ τοῦτο δέ με προκαλεῖται αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰωάννης, ὅστις ποτὲ εἴη πρὸς τοὺς πυνθανομένους ἀποκρινόμενος· «Ἐγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ.» Καὶ τάχα διὰ τοῦτο ἀπιστήσας ὁ Ζαχαρίας τῇ γενέσει τῆς δεικνυούσης τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ φωνῆς, ἀπόλλυσι τὴν φωνήν, λαμβάνων αὐτὴν ὅτε γεννᾶται ὁ πρόδρομος τοῦ λόγου φωνή. Ἐνωτίσασθαι γὰρ δεῖ φωνήν, ἵνα μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ νοῦς τὸν δεικνύμενον ὑπὸ τῆς φωνῆς λόγον δέξασθαι δυνηθῇ. Διόπερ καὶ ὀλίγῳ πρεσβύτερος κατὰ τὸ γενέσθαι ὁ Ἰωάννης ἐστὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ· φωνῆς γὰρ πρὸ λόγου ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα. Ἀλλὰ καὶ δείκνυσι τὸν Χριστὸν ὁ Ἰωάννης· φωνῇ γὰρ παρίσταται ὁ λόγος· ἀλλὰ καὶ βαπτίζεται ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου ὁ Χριστός, ὁμολογοῦντος χρείαν ἔχειν ὑπ' αὐτοῦ βαπτισθῆναι· ἀνθρώποις γὰρ ὑπὸ φωνῆς καθαίρεται λόγος, τῇ φύσει τοῦ λόγου καθαιρούσης πᾶσαν τὴν σημαίνουσαν φωνήν. Καὶ ἁπαξαπλῶς ὅτε Ἰωάννης τὸν Χριστὸν δείκνυσιν, ἄνθρωπος τὸν Θεὸν δείκνυσι, καὶ Σωτῆρα τὸν ἀσώματον, καὶ φωνὴ τὸν λόγον. ^B

27. Χρήσιμον δ' ἂν ἦν, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ πολλῶν ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐνέργεια, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ τόπου τούτου τὸ ἰδεῖν ὅ τι σημαίνει ὁ Ἰωάννης καὶ ὁ Ζαχαρίας. Καὶ γὰρ ὡς ὄντος τινὸς οὐκ εὐκαταφρονήτου, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ὀνόματος θέσιν, οἱ μὲν συγγενεῖς Ζαχαρίαν αὐτὸν καλεῖσθαι βούλονται, ξενιζόμενοι ἐπὶ τῷ βούλεσθαι τὴν Ἐλισάβετ Ἰωάννην αὐτὸν ὀνομάζειν· ὁ δὲ Ζαχαρίας γράψας τό· ^C «Ἰωάννης ἔσται ὄνομα αὐτῷ,» ἀπολύεται τῆς ἐπιπόνου σιωπῆς. Εὕρομεν τοίνυν ἐν τῇ Ἑρμηνείᾳ τῶν ὀνομάτων, Ἰωάννης, ὅτι τὸ «Ἰωὰ» χωρὶς τοῦ «νης» μεταλαμβανόμενον, ὅπερ ταὐτὸν οἰόμεθα εἶναι τῷ Ἰωάννης· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἄλλα ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη Ἑβραίων ὀνόματα ἐξελλήνισε, χαρακτῆρι αὐτὰ εἰποῦσα Ἑλληνικῷ, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ Ἰακώβ, Ἰάκωβον, καὶ ἐπὶ Συμεών, Σίμωνα. Ζαχαρίας δὲ «μνήμη» εἶναι λέγεται· ἡ δὲ Ἐλισάβετ «Θεοῦ μου ὅρκος» ἢ «Θεοῦ μου ἕβδομον.» Ἀπὸ Θεοῦ δὲ χάρις ἐκ τῆς περὶ Θεοῦ μνήμης κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν ὅρκον τὸν περὶ τοὺς πατέρας ἐγενήθη ὁ Ἰωάννης, ἑτοιμάζων Κυρίῳ λαὸν κατεσκευασμένον, ἐπὶ τέλει τῆς Παλαιᾶς γενομένης Διαθήκης, ἥ ἐστι σαββατισμοῦ κορωνίς· δι' ὃ Ζαχαρίας μνήμη εἶναι λέγεται Θεοῦ. ^D

Θεοῦ. ^A οὐ δύναται γεγενῆσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς ἑβδομάδος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, τὴν μετὰ τὸ σάββατον ἀνάπαυσιν τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ ἐμποιοῦντος τοῖς συμμόρφοις τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ γεγενημένοις, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως.

28. Οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν, ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός, ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσι δι' αὐτοῦ. Τῶν ἑτεροδόξων τινὲς πιστεύειν φάσκοντες εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν, καὶ διὰ τὸ ἀναπλάσσειν ἕτερον παρὰ τὸν Δημιουργὸν, ὡς ἀκόλουθον αὐτοῖς, οὐ προσιέμενοι τὴν ἐπιδημίαν αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν προκατηγγέλθαι, ἀνατρέπειν πειρῶνται τὰς διὰ τῶν προφητῶν περὶ Χριστοῦ μαρτυρίας, φάσκοντες μὴ δεῖσθαι μαρτύρων τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔχοντα τὸ τοῦ πιστεύεσθαι ἄξιον ἔν τε οἷς κατήγγειλε σωτηρίοις λόγοις, δυνάμεως πεπληρωμένοις, καὶ ^B ἐν τεραστίοις ἔργοις, αὐτόθεν καταπλήξασθαι πάνθ' ὀντινοῦν δυναμένοις· καί φασιν· Εἰ Μωϋσῆς πεπίστευται διὰ τὸν λόγον καὶ τὰς δυνάμεις, οὐ δεηθεὶς μαρτύρων πρὸ αὐτοῦ τινων αὐτὸν καταγγείλαντων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕκαστος τῶν προφητῶν παρεδέχθη ὑπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ, ὡς ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἀποσταλείς· πῶς οὐχὶ μᾶλλον Μωϋσέως καὶ τῶν προφητῶν διαφέρων δύναται χωρὶς προφητῶν μαρτυρούντων τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ ἀνῦσαι ὁ βούλεται, καὶ ὠφελῆσαι τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος; Παρέλκειν οὖν οἴονται τὸ ὑπὸ προφητῶν αὐτὸν νομίζεσθαι προκατηγγέλθαι, τοῦτο πραγματευσαμένων, ὡς εἴποιεν ἂν ἐκεῖνοι, τῶν τὴν καινότητα τῆς θεότητος παραδέξασθαι τοὺς εἰς Χριστὸν πιστεύοντας οὐ βουλομένων, ἀλλὰ ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν καταντῆσαι Θεὸν, ἂν καὶ πρὸ Ἰησοῦ Μωϋσῆς καὶ οἱ προφῆται ἐδίδαξαν. Λεκτέον οὖν πρὸς αὐτοὺς, ὅτι, πολλῶν αἰτίων δυναμένων γενέσθαι προκαλουμένων εἰς τὸ πιστεύειν, ἐνίοτέ τινων ἀπὸ τῆσδε μὲν τῆς ἀποδείξεως οὐ πληττομένων, ἀπὸ ἑτέρας δὲ, ἔχειν τὸν Θεὸν πλείονας ἀφορμὰς ἀνθρώποις παρέχειν, ἵνα παραδεχθῇ, ὅτι Θεὸς ὁ ὑπὲρ πάντα τὰ γενητὰ ἐνηνθρώπησεν. ^C Ἐναργῶς γοῦν ἔστιν ἰδεῖν τινας ἐκ τῶν προφητικῶν προῤῥήσεων εἰς θαυμασμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐρχομένους, καταπληττομένους τὴν τῶν τοσούτων πρὸ αὐτοῦ προφητῶν φωνὴν, συνεστῶσαν τόπον γενέσεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ χώραν ἀνατροφῆς, καὶ ἰσχὺν διδασκαλίας, δυνάμεών τε θαυμασίων ποίησιν καὶ πάθος ἀνθρώπινον ὑπὸ ἀναστάσεως καταλυόμενον. Καὶ τοῦτο δὲ ἐπισκεπτέον, ὅτι αἱ μὲν τεράστιοι δυνάμεις τοὺς κατὰ τὸν χρόνον τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενομένους προκαλεῖσθαι ἐπὶ τὸ πιστεύειν ἐδύναντο· οὐκ ἔσωζον δὲ τὸ ἐμφατικὸν μετὰ χρόνους πλείονας, ἤδη καὶ μύθους εἶναι ὑπονοηθείσας. Πλείον γὰρ τῶν τότε γενομένων δυνάμεων ἰσχύει πρὸς πειθὼς ἡ νῦν συνεξεταζομένη ταῖς δυνάμεσι προφητεία, κἀκείνας ἀπιστεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐρευνώντων αὐτὰς κωλύουσα. Τάχα δὲ αἱ προφητικαὶ μαρτυρίαι οὐ μόνον κηρύσσουσι Χριστὸν ἐλευσόμενον, ^D ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκείνας...

ἐκείνας ^A τὰς διδασκαλίας, καὶ ἄλλο οὐδὲν, ἀλλὰ πολλὴν θεολογίαν, σχέσιν τε Πατρὸς πρὸς Υἱὸν, καὶ Υἱοῦ πρὸς Πατέρα ἔστι μαθεῖν οὐκ ἔλαττον ἀπὸ τῶν προφητῶν, δι' ὧν ἀπαγγέλλουσι τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων διηγουμένων τὴν μεγαλειότητα τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ἔτι δὲ τολμήσαντα καὶ χωρὶς τούτων τοιοῦτόν τι εἰπεῖν, ὅτι εἰσὶ Χριστοῦ μάρτυρες τῷ μαρτυρεῖν περὶ αὐτοῦ κοσμούμενοι, καὶ οὐ πάντως ἐκείνῳ τι διὰ τοῦ μαρτυρεῖν περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ καταχαριζόμενοι, ὡς ὁμολογήσαιεν ἂν πάντες περὶ τῶν ἰδίως ὀνομαζομένων μαρτύρων Χριστοῦ. Τί οὖν θαυμαστὸν, εἰ, ὥσπερ ἐκοσμήθησαν τῷ μάρτυρες εἶναι Χριστοῦ πολλοὶ τῶν γνησίων Χριστοῦ μαθητῶν, οὕτως οἱ προφῆται τὸ προκαταγγεῖλαι Χριστὸν, νοήσαντες αὐτὸν, δῶρον ὑπὸ Θεοῦ εἰλήφασι, διδάσκοντες οὐ μόνον τοὺς μετὰ τὴν Χριστοῦ ἐπιδημίαν ἃ δεῖ φρονεῖν περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἐν προτέραις ἐκείνων γενεαῖς; Ὥσπερ «ὁ μὴ ἔγνωκὼς τὸν Υἱὸν νῦν, οὐδὲ τὸν Πατέρα ἔχει,» οὕτω καὶ πρότερον νοητέον. Διόπερ «Ἀβραὰμ ἠγαλλιάσατο, ἵνα ἴδῃ τὴν ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ, καὶ εἶδε, καὶ ἐχάρη.» Ἀποστερεῖν τοίνυν βούλεται τὸν χορὸν τῶν προφητῶν χάριν τὴν μεγίστην ὁ βουλόμενος αὐτοὺς μὴ δεῖν μαρτυρεῖν περὶ Χριστοῦ· τί γὰρ ἂν καὶ ἡ προφητεία ἡ ἐξ ἐπιπνοίας ἁγίου Πνεύματος εἶχε τηλικοῦτον, εἰ ὑπεξῄρητο αὐτῆς τὰ περὶ τῆς Κυρίου ἡμῶν οἰκονομίας; Ὡς γὰρ ἡ θεοσέβεια κεκόσμηται τῶν διὰ μεσίτου καὶ ἀρχιερέως καὶ Παρακλήτου καὶ ἐπιστημονικῶς προσερχομένων τῷ τῶν ὅλων Θεῷ, σκάζουσα ἂν εἰ μὴ διὰ τῆς θύρας τις εἰσίῃ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα· οὕτως καὶ ἡ τῶν πάλαι θεοσέβεια τῇ νοήσει καὶ πίστει καὶ προσδοκίᾳ Χριστοῦ ἱερὰ ἦν, καὶ παρὰ Θεῷ ἀποδεκτή· ἐπεὶ τετηρήκαμεν, ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς μάρτυς εἶναι ὁμολογεῖ, καὶ περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀποφαίνεσθαι πάντας ἐπὶ τὸ μιμητὰς αὐτοὺς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενέσθαι παρακαλῶν, κατὰ τὸ μαρτυρεῖν αὐτοῦ οἷς χρὴ μαρτυρεῖν· φησὶ γάρ: «Γένεσθέ μοι μάρτυρες, κἀγὼ μάρτυς, λέγει Κύριος ὁ Θεός· καὶ ὁ παῖς μου ὃν ἐξελεξάμην.» Πᾶς δὲ ὁ μαρτυρῶν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, εἴτε λόγοις εἴτε ἔργοις, εἴτε ὅπως ποτὲ ταύτῃ παριστάμενος, μάρτυς εὐλόγως ἂν χρηματίζοι· ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη κυρίως τὸ τῆς ἀδελφότητος ἔθος, ἐκπλαγέντες διάθεσιν τῶν ἕως θανάτου ἀγωνισαμένων ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας ἢ ἀνδρείας, κυρίως μόνους μάρτυρας ὠνόμασαν τοὺς τῇ ἐκχύσει τοῦ ἑαυτῶν αἵματος μαρτυρήσαντας τῷ τῆς θεοσεβείας μυστηρίῳ· τοῦ Σωτῆρος πάντα τὸν μαρτυροῦντα τοῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ καταγγελλομένοις, μάρτυρας ὀνομάζοντος· φησὶ γοῦν ἀναλαμβανόμενος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις· «Ἔσεσθέ μου μάρτυρες ἔν τε Ἱερουσαλὴμ, καὶ ἐν πάσῃ τῇ Ἰου^D

and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. ^A Just as the leper who has been cleansed offers the gift commanded by Moses, doing this as a testimony to those who have not believed in Christ, so too do the martyrs and all the saints, whose works shine before men, bear witness to those who are unbelievers; for they conduct their lives with boldness in the cross of Christ, and bear witness concerning the true light. ^B For they bear their own testimony to the mystery of his kindness. For the Savior also names all those who bear witness to the things announced concerning him, as he was taken up into heaven, saying to the apostles: "You shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." And just as the leper who is cleansed offers the gift enjoined by Moses, doing this for a testimony to those who have not yet believed in Christ, so both the martyrs and the other saints bear witness, those whose works shine before men, as they live placing their trust in the cross of Christ and testifying concerning the true light.

29. John therefore comes to bear witness concerning that light, who testifying cried out saying: "He who comes after me has been made before me, because he was more honorable than I; because of his fullness we all have received, and grace for grace: for the law was given through Moses; but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time: the Only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." This whole speech, therefore, is uttered from the person of the Baptist testifying to Christ—a fact which escapes some who imagine that the passage from "Of his fullness we all have received," down to "he has declared him," is spoken from the person of John the Apostle. ^C Besides the aforementioned testimony of the Baptist (beginning from the words: "He who comes after me has been made before me," and ending at the words: "He has declared him"), there is also this second testimony of John, after that one, when to those who had sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem (for the Jews surely sent them), he confesses, not denying the truth, that he himself was not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor that prophet, but "the voice of one crying in the desert: Make straight the way of the Lord, as Isaiah the prophet said." After these things, there is another testimony of this same Baptist concerning Christ, which teaches his primary hypostasis, which permeates the whole world for the sake of souls capable of reason, when he says: "In the midst of you stands one whom you do not know, who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unloose." ^D And consider whether, because the heart is in the midst of the whole body, and in the heart is the seat of the soul’s authority, it can be understood that what he says, "In the midst of you stands one whom you do not know," refers to the Reason which is in every man. The fourth testimony of John concerning Christ is one already describing even his human passion, when he says: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said: After me comes a man, who existed before me, because he was more honorable than I; and I did not know him: but that he might be made manifest to Israel, therefore I came baptizing in water." Now, the fifth testimony is inscribed in those words:

^A "I beheld the Spirit descending as a dove from heaven, and it remained upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said to me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God." And John bears a sixth testimony to Christ before two disciples, when, having looked upon Jesus walking, he says: "Behold the Lamb of God." After which testimony, when the two disciples of John had heard him, and had followed Jesus, Jesus having turned, and seen the two following, makes answer saying: "What seek you?" And perhaps it is not without reason that after six testimonies John ceases to bear witness, and Jesus in the seventh puts forward the words: "What seek you?" For that voice is becoming to those who have been benefited by the testimony of John, which proclaims Christ as Master, and confesses the desire to behold the dwelling-place of the Son of God; for they say to him: "Rabbi, which is to be interpreted, Master, where dwell you?" And since "Every one that seeks finds," ^B he points out the abode of Jesus to the disciples of John who have sought it, saying to them: "Come and see." Perhaps through the word "come," he invites them to that part of philosophy which is occupied with the action of things; and through the word "see," he designates for those who shall desire it the contemplation which, following upon the accomplishment of deeds, is altogether to exist in the abode of Jesus. But those who had sought where Jesus dwelt, and had followed and seen the Master, decided to remain with Jesus that whole day, and to spend it with the Son of God. But since the number ten is held as holy ^C (26), and since mysteries of no small importance are inscribed in the number ten, it must be understood that it is not without reason that the tenth hour is inscribed in the Gospel when the disciples of John turn to Jesus, among whom was Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, who, while he remained with Jesus, being helped, after finding his own brother Simon (for perhaps he had not found him before), says that he has found the Messiah, which is, if you interpret it, Christ. For since "he who seeks finds," and he had sought where Jesus dwelt, and having followed, and having beheld his abode, he remains with the Lord "at the tenth hour," and finds the Son of God, the Word, and the wisdom, ^D and is ruled by him; for this reason he says: "We have found the Messiah." And this declaration might be made by anyone who has found the Word of God, and is ruled by His divinity. He immediately offers the fruit to Christ, his brother Simon: whom, that Jesus might reward him with a singular gift, He looked upon, through 26 (26) Origen elsewhere in the tenth volume says to you, seeing in many places of Scripture that the number ten has obtained a different providence, [it is] perfect and [something] of God. For the bread which is to be eaten, being so unclean, ought not to be taken in a holy number, such as [is] that of the ten, and of the seven, and of the thirty, and of the eight, and some of the like numbers. And in the Royal Library Catena on the Prophets, on Ezech. IV, 10:

^A and declaring by that look that He cared for Simon, having illumined the most excellent part of his soul; and Simon, because Jesus had looked upon him, was able to be so far established that he drew his surname from that stable and firm work, and was called Peter.

30. But someone will say: Why, when the passage before us is, "He came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light," have we gone through all these things? We must say that it was necessary to present the testimonies of John concerning the Light, and to set forth their order, and the utility that followed for those among whom he had testified, which came to pass after the testimony of John from Jesus, so that the perfection of John's testimony might be declared. ^B And before these testimonies here, the leaping for joy of the Baptist in the womb of Elizabeth at the salutation of Mary was a testimony concerning Christ, the Baptist testifying to the divinity of His conception and birth. And what more? John is everywhere the witness and forerunner of Jesus, anticipating His birth, and dying a little before the death of the Son of God, so that he might prepare a people ready for the Lord, not only for those in the flesh, but also for those awaiting the freedom from death through Christ, arriving before Christ, everywhere. And the testimony of John extends even to the second, and more divine, coming of Christ. "For if you are willing," He says, "to receive it, he himself is Elias who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Since there is a Beginning in which is the Word (which we have shown from the book of Proverbs to be Wisdom), and since there is also the Word, and life has come to be in Him, and the life is the light of men, I inquire why it is that "the man sent from God, whose name was John," came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light. Why, therefore, did he not come to bear witness of the life, or to bear witness of the Word, or of the Beginning, or of any other conception of Christ? ^C Consider whether it is not because "the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light," and since "the light shines in darkness," and is not overtaken by it, those who are in darkness—namely, men—stand in need of light. For if the light of men shines in darkness, when there shall be no operation of darkness at all, then we shall participate in other conceptions of Christ, whereas we do not now participate in them properly and with certainty. For how are we participants of life, who are still clothed with this body of death? "Whose life is hidden with Christ in God? For when Christ, our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory." No man, therefore, who had come could have borne witness of the life which is still hidden with Christ in God. But neither did he come for witness that he might bear witness of the Word, since we understand the Word that [was] in the beginning with God, ^D and

[...and of the] Word ^A God; for on earth the Word became flesh. And there was a witness (even if it seemed to be regarding the Word), which would properly be spoken of the Word having become flesh, but not of the Word of God; wherefore he did not come to bear witness regarding the Word. But how could a witness be made regarding the Wisdom for those who, even if they seem to have perceived, do not clearly discern the truth as it is, but see through a mirror and in a riddle? It is probable, however, that before the second and more divine coming of Christ, John or Elias will come to bear witness regarding life, shortly before Christ, our life, is manifested; and then they will bear witness regarding the Word, and will present the testimony regarding the Wisdom. But it requires an investigation to see if the testimony of John is, as it were, a precursor to each of Christ’s specific considerations. These things, then, pertain to the text: "He came for a witness, that he might bear witness regarding the light." Next, it must be considered what we must understand by the text: "That all might believe through him."

FROM THE SAME TOME II, IN THE APOLOGY FOR ORIGEN BY PAMPHILUS THE MARTYR

Therefore, the only-begotten God our Savior is the Son generated from the Father alone, by nature and not by adoption; He is born from the very mind of the Father, just as a will is from the mind. For the divine nature is not divisible, as we might think that the Son was generated by a division or diminution of the substance of the unbegotten Father. But whether one calls it mind, or heart, or sense regarding God, remaining undiscussed, it brings forth the germ of the will, and became the Father of the Word; which Word, resting in the bosom of the Father, announces "God, whom no one has ever seen," and reveals the Father, whom no one has known except He alone, and those to whom the heavenly Father has drawn them.

FROM THE FOURTH TOME ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

After three pages from the beginning.

1. He who divides within himself the word, and the signified, and the things for which notions are placed, will not stumble at the solecism of the word, when, while investigating, he finds the things for which the words are set to be sound and whole; especially when holy men profess that their word ^C and their preaching is "not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power." ^D

Then, having mentioned the solecism of the Gospel, he continues.

^A 2. But the apostles, who were not ignorant of the matters in which they tripped, and in which studies they were not versed, profess themselves to be idiots in speech, but not in understanding; for it must be thought that this is said not by Paul alone, but by the rest of the apostles: "But we," etc. Also that passage: "We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God and not from us," we have understood it, as if by "treasure" is meant something taken from elsewhere—the treasure of hidden knowledge and wisdom—and by "earthen vessels," the diction of the Scriptures, which is humble and despised among the Greeks; there is truly declared the exceeding greatness of the divine power: for the mysteries of truth and the virtue of the words were able, nothing hindered by the tenuity of the diction, to reach to the ends of the earth, and to subdue to the word of Christ not only the foolish of the world, ^B but sometimes even the wise. For we see the calling, not that there is no one wise according to the flesh, but "that not many wise according to the flesh were called." But also, Paul is a debtor and obliged, while preaching the Gospel, not only to deliver his word to the barbarians, but also to the Greeks; and not only to the unskilled, who readily assent, but also to the learned: for he was made by God a capable minister of the New Testament, using a demonstration of spirit and power, so that the assent of those who believe might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. For if the Scripture had possessed the beauty and refinement of language, such as things admired among the Greeks, someone might have thought that ^C it was not the truth that had overcome men, but that the apparent sequence and splendor of the diction had enticed the hearers, and that they had been captivated and won over by such allurements.

FROM THE FIFTH TOME ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.

1. Since you are not content, for the sake of my absence, with having taken upon yourself the work of those who act as taskmasters for God, and for the most part, being absent, you ask that I should have leisure, and according to my duty to you, that I should labor upon much; I, fleeing from the toil, and standing in awe of the danger that hangs from God over those who have given themselves to writing upon divine letters, could defend myself by the patronage of Scripture, refusing to write many books. For thus Solomon says in Ecclesiastes: "My son, beware of making many books; there is no end, and much meditation is a weariness of the flesh." For we, if it does not have a certain sense ^D

hidden deep away, and still obscure to us, that proposal of Solomon’s, ^A we have utterly transgressed the commandment, failing to take heed against producing many books.

Next, after saying [Origen] that he had completed four volumes on a few words of the Gospel, he adds:

2. For the expression signifies two things by these words: “My son, take heed not to produce many books”; ^B first, that one should not possess many books; and second, that one should not compose many books; and if not the first, then certainly the second; and if the second, not necessarily the first. Beyond this, from both sides we seem to learn that we ought not to produce many books. I could, however, by keeping to what has now fallen under our consideration, send you that scriptural saying as an excuse; and, having substantiated the matter from the fact that not even the saints applied themselves to the composition of many books, I could cease from henceforth to append commentaries according to the covenant we established between us to send them to you. And perhaps you, struck by the phrase, would have granted me this for the future. But since the Scriptures must be examined with an upright mind and conscience, and one should not rejoice rashly at seeming to understand them from the fact that one has grasped the bare wording, I do not bring forward, nor do I offer, the defense that seems to support me, lest you should be able to use it against me if I were to do anything beyond our pact. And first, indeed, since the history seems to agree with those words—as none of the saints published more numerous commentaries, nor set forth his thoughts in many books—we must dispute about this. ^C For he who rebukes me for setting myself to write more will say that Moses, such a great and illustrious man, left behind only five books.

FROM THE SAME FIFTH TOME OF THE COMMENTARIES ON JOHN

3. But he whom God rendered fit to be a minister of the New Testament, not of the letter but of the spirit, Paul—who fulfilled the Gospel from Jerusalem and in a circuit as far as Illyricum—did not write to all the Churches he had taught; but even to those to whom he did write, he scribbled only a few lines. Moreover, Peter, upon whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the very gates of Hades shall not prevail, left behind one epistle accepted by the consensus of all. Let us grant, however, even a second ^D; for it is questioned. What must we say about John, who reclined upon the breast of Jesus? He who left behind one Gospel—

even though he confesses that he could have written so many books that the whole world itself could not contain them. He wrote, moreover, the Revelation, being ordered to be silent and not to write the voices of the seven thunders. He has also left behind an epistle of very few lines; let us grant also a second and a third, since not all affirm these to be genuine. Yet neither together contains a hundred lines. Then, having enumerated ^A prophets and apostles, of whom each wrote a few things, or even nothing at all, he adds:

4. [Origen.] Following this, I am seized by a dizziness and darkness, lest by obeying you I might not have obeyed God, nor imitated the saints; if I am not mistaken, therefore, in pleading for myself because of my great love for you and my desire not to cause you any annoyance in any matter, I find such excuses for these things. Before all else, we proposed the passage from Ecclesiastes, which says: "My son, beware of composing many books." Against this, I compare a saying from the Proverbs of the same Solomon, which declares: "From much speaking you will not escape sin; but if you spare your lips, you will be wise." And I ask whether speaking many things at all is loquacity, even if someone speaks many holy and saving things. For if it were so, that he who discourses upon many useful things is a talkative person, then surely Solomon himself did not escape sin, he who brought forth three thousand parables and five thousand songs, and [spoke] concerning trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon ^B even to the hyssop that grows out of the wall; and furthermore, concerning cattle, and concerning birds, and concerning creeping things, and concerning fishes. For how can anyone complete a teaching without that more simply understood loquacity, when Wisdom itself says to those who are perishing: "I stretched out my words, and you did not heed"? And it is clear that Paul was accustomed to teaching from morning until midnight, when Eutychus, overcome by sleep and having fallen down, disturbed those who were listening, as one dead. If, therefore, it is true that "from much speaking you will not escape sin," and it is true that Solomon did not sin, who discoursed upon many of the aforementioned things, nor did Paul, who [held] ^C the discourse until—

Of those things which are contradicted, yet are well-known to many, there is brought forward the one-called Epistle of James, and that of Jude, and the second Epistle of Peter, and the so-called second and third epistles of John.

(47) "I stretched out [my] words." The Syrians and Arabs read [this way]. The other translators read, which comes to the same thing, for those who were to speak words were making an audience for themselves with their hand. Thus Paul in the Acts, and Persius in his Satires: "The spirit prompts [me] to have made the silences of the hot crowd with the majesty of the hand..." and Caesar in Lucan: "He composed the tumult with his countenance and his right hand, and commanded silence." To this observation add this: that sign is usually made with three fingers held up, the thumb, the index, and the middle, with the ring and little fingers closed.

^A and extended to midnight. We must inquire what logorrhea is, and from there move on to see what the "many books" are. The total Word of God, 48 which was in the beginning with God, is not logorrhea, nor is it "words"; for the Word is one, composed of many contemplations, of which each contemplation is a part of the whole Word. But those outside of this, who profess to contain a digression and an exposition of whatever kind—even if their words are as if about the truth—I say something new and bold: none of them is a "Word," but they are individual "words." For nowhere is there unity, and nowhere is there harmony and oneness; but because they are distracted and fight against themselves, their unity has perished, and they have become numbers, and perhaps infinite numbers. Therefore, it is consistent for us to say that the one who speaks anything alien to divine worship is a chatterer; but he who speaks the things of the truth, even if he says everything so as to leave nothing out, is always saying one Word. And the saints, who have the target of the one Word fixed before them, do not chatter. If, therefore, logorrhea is judged by its precepts, and not by the number of words used, see if we can in this way speak of all the holy books as one book, while the books that are outside of these are many. ^B But since I need testimony from divine Scripture, consider whether I can demonstrate this in a wonderful way, having established that concerning Christ according to us, it is not written in one book, if we understand the holy books in the common sense. For it is written in the five books of Moses, and it is said in each of the prophets, and in the Psalms, and, in short, as the Savior himself says, in all the Scriptures, to which he refers us, saying: «Search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me.» If, therefore, he refers us to the Scriptures as bearing witness of him, he does not send us to this one and not to that one, but to all those which proclaim concerning him, which he calls the "head of the book" in the Psalms, saying: «In the head of the book it is written of me.» For he who wishes to take the phrase, «In the head of the book it is written of me,» simply regarding any one of those which contain what pertains to him, should declare by what reason he prefers this book to another. But so that no one might think that we refer that statement to the book of Psalms, we must answer him that it ought to have been said: «In this book it is written of me.» But now he calls everything one head, because the Word which has come to us concerning him is gathered into one head. ^C What then? Did John not see a book written within and without, and sealed, which no one could read, nor loose its seals, except the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, «who has the key?» ^D

of David, and opens, and no one shall shut, and shuts, and no one shall open?» ^A For all Scripture is that which is signified by the book, written within on account of its easy interpretation, and without on account of the more remote sense, which is from the Spirit. Further, it must be observed whether it can be demonstrated that the holy books are one book, but those opposed to them are many, by the fact that there is one book of the living, from which those who have become unworthy of it are blotted out, as it is written: «Let them be blotted out of the book of the living»; but concerning those who are subjected to judgment, not a book, but books are mentioned; for Daniel says: «The judgment sat, and the books were opened.» Moses also bears witness to the unity of the divine book, saying: «If indeed you forgive the people their sin, forgive it; but if not, blot me out of your book, which you have written.» I interpret also that which is in Isaiah in this way. For it is not ^B peculiar to this prophecy that the words of the book should be sealed, neither read by one who does not know letters, because he does not know letters, nor by one who does know, because the book is sealed. But this is true of all Scripture, which stands in need of the Word of God, which has shut in order that it may open; for this is «he who shuts, and no one opens; and when he has opened, no one can subsequently bring forward a doubt concerning its interpretation.» For this reason it is said, that «he will open, and no one will shut.» I understand something similar concerning the book which is with Ezekiel, in which «was written a lamentation, and a song, and a woe.» For every book contains the woe for those who perish, and the song for those who are saved, and the lamentation for those who are in between. But John, who devoured one head, the anterior and posterior ^C parts of which were written, understands all Scripture as one most sweet book, as soon as it is perceived, when one chews it as it were, but bitter to the sense and conscience of each of those who have perceived it, which brings it forth. I will add furthermore to the confirmation of this matter, an apostolic saying nowhere understood by those who follow Marcion, who therefore reject and disapprove of the Gospels; for when the Apostle says: «According to my Gospel in Christ Jesus,» and does not say Gospels, those who dwell thereon say that, were there more Gospels, the Apostle would not have spoken of the Gospel in the singular; not understanding that, just as there is one which many proclaim, so it is one in power, the Gospel written by many. And in truth, that which is written by four is one Gospel. If, therefore, these things can persuade us ^D what the one book is, and what the many are, I am now more anxious, not indeed on account of the multitude of writers, but on account of the power of the understandings, lest perhaps I fall into transgressing the

^A commandment, if I set forth anything contrary to the truth as though it were the truth, even in one of the things written. For in that case I should be a writer of many books; and even now, inasmuch as those who are heterodox towards the holy Church of God ^B rise up under the pretext of knowledge, and offer works containing many books, promising an account of evangelical and apostolic ordinances, if we were to remain silent and not set before them sound and true doctrines, they would overcome simple souls through a lack of saving nourishment, leading them to hasten toward forbidden and truly unclean and abominable foods. Wherefore it seems to me necessary that he who is able to plead for the ecclesiastical discourse without distortion, and to refute those who assume for themselves false knowledge, should stand against heretical inventions, opposing to them the height of the evangelical proclamation, in which there is the fullest agreement of the common doctrine—of what they call the Old with the New Testament. And you yourself, seeing the scarcity of those who might assert better things, since you could not endure a faith that was irrational and vulgar, on account of your love for Jesus, once gave yourself over to discourses which later, having made use of the prudence given to you as was fitting, you condemned and turned away from. These things I say, by way of making an apology on behalf of those who are able to speak and write, as far as it appears to me. But I also speak my own cause, who, not being of the training and habit that one ought to have who has been rendered fit by God as a minister of the New Testament, not of the letter but of the spirit 90*, cast myself into speaking with more boldness.

FROM THE SAME TOME V, IN THE APOLOGY FOR ORIGEN BY PAMPHILUS THE MARTYR

The only-begotten Son, our Savior, who alone is born of the Father, is Son by nature alone and not by adoption.

‹Item in the same book.›

There is, therefore, one true God, “who alone has immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable” 91*. One true God, lest, indeed, we should believe that the name of the true God applies to many. So also, those who receive “a spirit of adoption as sons, whereby we cry: Abba, Father” 92*, are indeed sons of God, but not as the only-begotten Son. For the only-begotten is Son by nature, and is always and inseparably Son; but the others, for the reason that they have received into themselves the Son of God, have received the power to become children of God. “Who,” although they “were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” 93*, yet they were not born by that birth by which the only-begotten Son was born. For which reason, just as great a difference as the true God has toward those to whom it is said: “I said, You are gods” 94*; just as great a difference, the true Son has toward those who hear: “All of you are children of the Most High” 95*.

ORIGEN'S EXPLANATORY COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. VOLUME VI.

PREFACE

^A 1. Every house, as far as possible, must be constructed most firmly and built during calm and tranquil weather, that it may not be hindered from attaining the proper stability; so that it may be such as to sustain the force of a flood and the dashing of a river, and all that usually happens when a storm occurs, to test which buildings are rotten and weak, and which are firm and stable and have received their proper strength. But especially the building of reason—composed as it were in promise and scripture, and capable of contemplations of the truth—is then most properly built ^B (God, together with him who has set out to perform this excellent work, building it:) when the soul, using that peace which surpasses all understanding, is polished in supreme tranquility, freed from all tumult and agitated by no storms of waves. Having accurately perceived these things, the interpreters of the prophetic spirit and the ministers of the evangelical preaching seem to me to have shown themselves worthy to receive the inner peace from Him who always gives it to the worthy, and who said ^C: "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you: not as the world gives peace, do I give to you." Consider, then, whether the history of David and Solomon regarding the Temple does not hint at something of this sort. For David, while waging the wars of the Lord and standing against many enemies of himself and of Israel, wishing to build a temple to God, is forbidden by God through Nathan, who says to him: "You shall not build me a house, because you are a man of blood." But Solomon, having seen God in a dream and having received wisdom in a dream ^D (for it was reserved in reality for Him who says: "Behold, more than Solomon is here"), being in the deepest peace, so that each one rested then under his vine and under his fig tree, and

^A in accordance with the peace of his own times (for Solomon is interpreted as "peaceful") he has leisure to build the celebrated temple to God. And according to the times of Esdras, when truth conquers wine and the enemy king and the women, the temple is rebuilt to God. These things have been said by us in our own defense to you, holy Ambrose, since, desiring to build the evangelical tower in writing according to your holy exhortation, we calculated, sitting down, the cost ^B to see if we had the means for its completion, that we might not be hindered by those who watch us, having laid the foundation but being unable to finish the work. But having calculated that we had at hand what was necessary for the completion of the building, and not grasping it, we entrusted it to God, who makes one rich in every word and in all knowledge, believing that as we struggle to keep the spiritual laws, He enriches us; and as we progress in building from what is supplied by Him, we shall attain even to the crown of the building. This prevents the one who has climbed up to the roof of the word from falling—for only those who are deprived of the crown fall, and those who fall because of the incompleteness ^C of the buildings, which are the cause of slaughter and casualties for those who reside in them. And up to the fifth volume, even though the storm at Alexandria seemed to oppose us, we dictated the things that were given, while Jesus rebuked the winds and the waves of the sea. And having advanced from this calamity, we were dragged out of Egypt, God having rescued us, who led His people out of it. Then, when the enemy most bitterly waged war against us through his new letters, which are truly inimical to the Gospel, and stirred up against us all the winds of wickedness in Egypt, the word exhorted me rather to stand for the struggle and to keep my ruling faculty, lest wicked thoughts prevail to bring the storm into my soul, rather than to attach, untimely, the next parts of the Scripture before the mind had received tranquility. Moreover, my habitual ^D fast scribes, who are present with me, were preventing me from dictating what I had thought out.

[...not yet covered] ^A when many fiery arrows aimed at us have proved futile, with God extinguishing them, and our soul, having become accustomed to those things which happen for the sake of the heavenly word, is compelled to endure the established plots more easily—just as, having obtained some serenity, we no longer wish to delay in dictating what remains, praying that God, our teacher, who sounds within the innermost shrine of our soul, might be present, so that the construction of the explanation of the Gospel according to John may receive its fulfillment. And may God be a listener to our prayer, that we may be able to join together the body of the whole work, with no intervening misfortune henceforth able to cause any disruption of the sequence of the Scripture. Know, however, that I am making this second beginning of the sixth volume with great readiness, because those things which we had previously ^B interpreted in Alexandria have not, I know not how, been brought with us. For I thought it better, lest this work also be interrupted meanwhile by laziness, to pursue what remained rather than, while I am uncertain about finding what we had interpreted, to wait and have this time meanwhile—which is no small addition of gain—perish. And let these things suffice by way of a preface; now let us take up the context.

Preface

2. « And this is the testimony of John. » This is the second testimony written by John the Baptist concerning Christ, the first having begun from the words, « This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me, » ^C and ending at the words: « The only begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. » But Heracleon does not correctly suppose that the words, « No man hath seen God at any time, » and what follows, were spoken not by the disciple but by the Baptist. For if, according to his own opinion, the passage, « Of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace, for the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, » was spoken by the Baptist, how does it not follow that he who has received from the fullness of Christ, and ^D grace upon grace, and who has confessed that the law was given through Moses, but that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, must also, from those things which had come to him from the fullness, have understood how « No man hath seen God at any time, » and that it was the « Only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, » who delivered the explanation to him and to all those who have received from the fullness? For it is not now for the first time that he who is in the bosom of the Father has given the explanation, as if no one previously had been fit to receive what he declared to the apostles, given that before Abraham was made

^A existing, he teaches us that Abraham rejoiced to see his day and was in gladness. And the saying, "From his fullness we have all received," and "grace for grace," as we have said in what precedes, shows that the prophets also received the gift from the fullness of Christ, and received a second grace in place of the former. For they too, having been led by the hand by the Spirit after their introduction in types, had reached the vision of the truth. Therefore, not all the prophets, but many, desired to see what the apostles saw. For if there was a difference among the prophets, the perfected and excellent ones did not desire to see what the apostles saw, for they had gazed upon them themselves. But those who had not reached, like these, to the height of the word, came to be in longing for what was known to the apostles through Christ. For we have understood the "seeing" as not having been spoken of bodily, and the "hearing" as having been understood spiritually—for only he possesses ears who has prepared them to hear the words of Jesus, a thing which does not happen very readily.

^B Further, that the saints before the bodily presence of Jesus had perceived the mysteries of the divinity more than the majority of those who believe—the Word of God teaching them even before he became flesh (for he always works, being an imitator of the Father, concerning whom he says, "My Father is working until now")—we may observe also from these expressions, where he says to the Sadducees who do not believe the word concerning the resurrection: "Have you not read what was said at the bush by God: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God, however, is not a God of the dead, but of the living." If, therefore, God is not ashamed to be called the God of these men, and they are reckoned by Christ among the living, and all who believe are sons of Abraham (since in the faithful Abraham, who was appointed by God as father of the nations, all nations are blessed), do we hesitate to admit that the living knew the teachings of the living, having been discipled by Christ, who was begotten before the morning star before he became flesh? ^C But for this reason they were living, since they partook of him who says, "I am the life," and they were receiving the appearance not only of angels, but also of God through Christ, as heirs of such great promises; and perhaps seeing the image of the invisible God (since he who has seen the Son has seen the Father), when they had understood God and had heard the words of God in accordance with his dignity, they are written down as having seen God and heard him. I think, indeed, that those who are perfectly and genuinely sons of Abraham are sons of his actions, which are understood to be spiritual, and are also sons of the knowledge manifested to Abraham himself, since what he himself knew and did has been engendered in those who are sons of the patriarch, just as he teaches those who have ears, saying:

^A “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.” And if “a wise man will understand what he has brought forth from his own mouth, and will carry candor of mind upon his lips,” it is necessary either rashly to declare something about the prophets, as if they were not wise (on the ground that they did not understand what they brought forth from their own mouth), or, by admitting what is honorable and true, that the prophets were wise, to acknowledge that they had understood what they brought forth from their own mouth, and had carried this candor of mind upon their lips. And it is clear that Moses saw with the intellect the truth of the Law and the allegories of the histories recorded by him, according to their spiritual sense. And Jesus understood the true distribution that took place after the destruction of the twenty-nine kings, being able more than we to discern of what truths those things accomplished through him were the shadows. It is clear, ^B too, that Isaiah saw the mystery of Him who was seated upon the throne, and of the two seraphim, and of his wings, and of the altar, and of the tongs, and of the covering of the face and the feet, which the seraphim were performing. And Ezekiel saw the cherubim, and their movement, and the firmament above them, and Him who was seated upon the throne—to which what could be more glorious or more lofty? And, so as not to extend my speech at length by speaking of each point one by one, wishing to demonstrate that those who were perfected in former generations knew no less than those who received the revelation from Christ—since that same One who taught the apostles revealed to them also the hidden mysteries of the worship of God—I shall leave a few things more for my readers to judge and consider regarding these matters, as they wish. For Paul says in the Epistle to the Romans: ^C “To Him who is able to strengthen you according to my Gospel, in accordance with the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for eternal times, but has now been manifested through the prophetic scriptures and the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” For if the mystery, which was formerly kept silent, has been manifested to the apostles through the prophetic scriptures, and the prophets understood what they brought forth from their own mouth, because they were wise, then the prophets certainly understood what was manifested to the apostles. But since it had not been revealed to many and common people, for this reason Paul says: “In other generations it was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs and fellow-body.” See, then, if even an objection—as though ^D it were one to be raised against the argument by those who do not accept our reasoning—can be interpreted in this way, that the term "revealed" may be taken in two ways: in one way, when that which is revealed is understood; but in another way, when anything has been prophesied—so that it might also be fulfilled; for then it is

^A revealed, when the matter is fulfilled and accomplished. The prophets, therefore, knew that the Gentiles would be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ—as far as knowledge is concerned—that the Gentiles would be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers, and when they would be fellow-heirs, and why, and what kind they were, and how, being strangers from the covenants and aliens from the promise, they would afterward be of the same body and partakers, since this had been revealed to them. But to those who understand, yet do not see the things that were prophesied being fulfilled, the future things are not revealed in the same way as they are to those who behold the outcome of them under their eyes, which happened in the case of the apostles. For thus, as I think, they understood the matters no better than the Fathers and prophets; but the statement about them is verified: "Which in other ages was not made known, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ," because, besides understanding the mysteries, they also contemplate the action through the matter being fulfilled. And the passage, "Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them," can have a similar interpretation: as if they too had desired to see the mystery long foretold of the Incarnation of the Son of God, and His descent for the ordering of His passion, which is saving for many. ^B As if we were to take another such example: Suppose there is some apostle who understands "unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter," and he is not going to see the second glorious coming of Christ, which is proclaimed among the faithful, and yet he desires to see it. Again, let there be another who not only has not grasped and understood the same things as the apostle, but who also possesses a far smaller share of divine hope than he does, and yet this man attains the second coming of our Savior (which the apostle, according to the example, desires indeed, but does not see). Assuredly, we shall not falsely say that these two have seen what that apostle, or the apostles, desired to see, nor for this reason shall we necessarily say that they are wiser and more blessed than the apostles. ^C In this way, therefore, we shall not say that the apostles are wiser than the Fathers, or Moses, or the prophets, and especially those who, by reason of their virtue, were held worthy for a longer time of supernal apparitions, or divine representations, and revelations of great mysteries. ^D 5. Moreover, we have spent time examining these points, since many, because of their opinion of glorifying the coming of Christ, stating that the apostles were wiser than the prophets and the Fathers, some indeed...

have fashioned a greater God, while others, not daring this, at least in their own discourse, because of the unexamined nature of their dogmas, bankrupt the gift given to the Fathers and the prophets by God through Christ, through whom all things came to be; and if all things, then clearly also the excellent and noble symbols of ^A the mysteries of the holy worship of God revealed to them. Since it is necessary that noble soldiers of Christ be fenced in on every side for the sake of the truth, nowhere allowing entry, as far as possible, to the persuasiveness of falsehood, come, let us consider these things also. For perhaps they will say that the former testimony of John about Christ is: "He who comes after me has been made before me, because he was before me," 33 and that what follows, "For from his fullness we all have received, and grace for grace," 35 and the rest, was spoken by the person of the disciple. But it is necessary ^B to refute this interpretation as forced and incoherent; for it is altogether violent to think that the discourse of the Baptist is suddenly and untimely interrupted by the discourse of the disciple, and to anyone who knows how to judge even slightly the context of the words being spoken, the series of the reading is manifest: "This was he of whom I said: He who comes after me has been made before me, because he was before me." 36 The Baptist teaches how Jesus has been made before him—declared by the Baptist himself to be prior, because he is "the firstborn of all creation," 37—through those words: "For from his fullness we all have received." For this reason, he says, "He has been made before me, because he was before me," and for this reason I understand him to exist as prior ^C and more honorable before the Father, because from his fullness both I and the prophets who preceded me have received a grace more divine and prophetic, in place of the grace accepted by us according to our own choice; and for this reason also "he has been made before me, because he was before me," because when we had drunk from his fullness, we understood also that the law was given through Moses, not by Moses; 40 but that grace and truth were not only given through Jesus Christ, but also made, with God and His Father both giving the law through Moses, and making grace and truth through Jesus Christ; having made grace and truth through Jesus Christ to reach out to men. For ^D if we hear more intelligently the words stating, "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ," 41 we shall not be troubled as if there were a contradiction to this utterance: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." 42 For if Jesus is the one who says, "I am the truth," how does the truth come into being through Jesus Christ? For no one is made through himself. But it must be understood that that which is truth itself, the essential, and, if I may so speak, the archetype of the truth in rational souls, from which truth, as it were images, are imprinted in those who discern the truth, did not come to be through Jesus Christ, but...

^A came to be entirely from God; just as the Word, who was in the beginning with God, and the wisdom which God created as the beginning of his ways, were not through anyone; so too, truth is not through anyone. But the truth that is among men came to be through Jesus Christ; for example, the truth that is in Paul and the other apostles came to be through Jesus Christ. And it is no wonder if, truth being one, we say that many truths flow from it. For David the prophet perceived many truths, saying: “The Lord will seek out truths.” For the Father of truth does not seek out one truth, but the many, through which those who possess them are saved. We find something similar said about justice and justices, as was said about truth and truths. For the justice that is of itself and substantial is Christ, “who became for us wisdom from God, and justice, and sanctification, and redemption [perfecta].” But from that justice is formed the justice that is in each person, so that in those who are being saved, many justices come to be; for this reason it is also written: “For the Lord is just, and he has loved justices;” for we find it thus in the accurate copies, and in the other editions besides the Septuagint, and in the Hebrew. ^B Observe, however, if the other things that Christ is said to be singularly can in like manner be multiplied and spoken of in the plural, according to proportion; for example, Christ is our life, as the Savior himself says: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life;” and the Apostle: “When Christ, our life, shall appear, then you also will appear with him in glory.” Again, in the Psalms it is written: “Your mercy is better than lives.” For because Christ is life in each person, therefore lives are multiplied. Perhaps we ought to investigate in this way also that which says: “Do you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me?” For Christ is found in every saint, and through the one Christ, many Christs come to be, who are his imitators and are formed into the image of God, who is the image of God; whence God says through the prophet: “Do not touch my Christs.” That which, therefore, we seemed to have passed over in our explanation, namely, “Grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ,” we have now ^C explained in passing, further showing that this is the voice of John the Baptist, still bearing testimony to the Son of God through these words.

4. Let us now consider the second testimony of John. From Jerusalem, the Jews, as being kinsmen of the Baptist, since he happened to be of the priestly race, send priests and Levites to ask who John might be. But he, saying, “I am not Christ,” ^D

^A has made a confession of truth; and it is not, as one might suppose, that by the words, “I am not Christ,” he denied Him; for it is no denial to state, to the glory of Christ, that he is not Christ. But when those who had been sent from the city of Jerusalem, ^B the priests and Levites, had heard that he was not the expected Christ, they inquire about the second name held in honor among them, namely Elias, to see if he might be that person. And when he says that he is not Elias, he again speaks the truth by saying, “I am not.” Since, however, among the many prophets who appeared in Israel, there was one in particular ^C who was prophesied by Moses, according to the stated word: “The Lord our God will raise up for you a Prophet from your brothers, like me; you shall listen to Him; and every soul that does not listen to that prophet will be destroyed from his people,” they ask for a third time, not whether he is a prophet, but whether he is *the* prophet. And because those men were not assigning this title to Christ, ^D but thought there was another person besides Christ, he himself, knowing the one of whom he is the precursor (for both Christ and that prophet are the one prophesied), says, “No.” Perhaps, had they asked without the article, he would have answered, “Yes,” for he was not ignorant that he was a prophet. And in all these responses, the second testimony of John is not yet complete, until, for those seeking an answer to report to those who had sent them, he proclaimed himself by the prophetic voice of Isaiah, which is as follows: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord.”

5. It is worthy to inquire whether the second testimony is completed, and the third begins with those sent from the Pharisees, who wish to learn why he baptizes, since he happens to be neither Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet, in the words: “I baptize in water; but there stands among you one whom you do not know, he who is coming after me, of whom I am not worthy to loosen the strap of his sandal,” or whether the report to the Pharisees is part of the second testimony. For my part, as far as one can conjecture from the text, I would say the third testimony is the discourse to those sent by the Pharisees. It must be noted, however, that the first testimony reveals the divinity of the Savior; the second removes the suspicion of those who are in doubt, whether John might be Christ; and the third proclaims Him who is invisibly present to men as about to appear shortly. But before the following testimonies, by which he who is demonstrated receives his testimony, let us look at each word of the second and third testimonies, having first observed this: that two embassies are directed to the Baptist, one from Jerusalem, ^D by the Jews sending priests and Levites to ask him, “Who are you?” and another by the Pharisees sending, and regarding the one that occurred...

^A in response to the priests and Levites who were asking deep questions. Observe, therefore, how, on account of the sacred and Levitical personage, the words are spoken with gentleness and a desire to learn: “Who are you?” and, “What then? Are you Elijah?” and, “Are you that Prophet?” and in addition to these, “Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” For there is nothing obstinate or bold in their questioning; rather, everything is fitting for true worshipers of God. But those sent from the Pharisees—who were not as anxious to investigate what had been said as were the Levites and priests—approach the Baptist with voices that are, as it were, insulting and more inhuman, by saying: ^B “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” And they do so almost without wanting to learn, as the aforementioned priests and Levites were sending, but rather wanting to prevent [him] from baptizing, perhaps thinking that it belongs to no one else to baptize than to Christ, or Elijah, or the prophet. And everywhere, he who is to read the Scripture accurately must employ diligence, since it is necessary to observe what is said, by whom it is said, and when it is said, so that we may find in all the holy books the discourse suitably attributed to the persons.

6. Then the Jews sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to ask him, “Who are you?” And he confessed, and did not deny; and he confessed, “I am not the Christ.” What elders should the Jews have sent to John, and from where, if not those who were thought to excel, and from the place of Jerusalem, celebrated beyond all the good earth, ^C where the temple of God was? With such honor, therefore, do they question John. But regarding Christ, it is not written that any such thing was done by the Jews. But what the Jews do toward John, this John did toward Christ, questioning through his own disciples: “Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?” And John indeed, having confessed to those who had come and not denied, later declares, “I am the voice of one crying in the desert.” Christ, however, as one who has a greater testimony than John, makes a response by words and deeds, saying, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: the blind receive sight, ^D the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the poor have the Gospel preached to them,” concerning which we shall discuss more conveniently, God granting, in their proper places. Perhaps, however, one might not unreasonably ponder why, when the priests and Levites were asking John not if he himself were the Christ, but “Who are you?”, the Baptist responds not with what was appropriate for “Who are you?”—[which would be] “I am the voice of one crying in the desert”—but with what would have been appropriately said if they had asked, “Are you the Christ?” For it was fitting for “Are you the Christ?” [to answer] that: “I am not the Christ”; but for “Who are you?” [to answer]: “I am the voice of one crying in the

wilderness. We must say in response to this, that, as is likely, John perceived from the question the timidity of the priests and Levites, who indeed showed a suspicion of an opinion—lest perhaps the one baptizing were the Christ—but were cautious about stating this more openly, lest they appear insolent. Whence rightly, in order to remove first of all their entire suspicion, which they held falsely concerning him, and then thus to show the truth, he declares before all else: ^A “I am not the Christ.” That they had suspected something of this kind is declared by the second question, and furthermore, by the third. For since they also suspected him to be the second in honor—whom they hoped for and who was honored among them after Christ—namely, Elias, when John declared that he was not the Christ, they asked: “What then? Are you Elias?” And he said: “I am not.” They wished to learn in the third place if he were the prophet; and to his answer, “No,” ^B since they could no longer name individually anyone who was hoped to arrive among them, they say: “Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” By this, they implied: You are not these things which are expected to come for Israel; but what kind of person you are, you who baptize, we do not know. Therefore, teach us this, so that we may have an answer to report to those who sent us to you for this reason. Furthermore, we shall add this, which is pertinent to what has been set forth: that the time of the advent of Christ had been stirring the people, already being in some measure imminent regarding the years from the birth of Jesus, and a little earlier, up to the demonstration of the preaching. Therefore, as is likely, the Scribes and lawyers, having gathered the time of the one who was hoped for from the divine Scriptures, being already in expectation, ^C there started up (83) Theudas, having gathered, I think, no small multitude as though he were the Christ, “and after him Judas the Galilean in the days of the enrollment.” It is therefore likely, with the advent of Christ being more fervently expected and spoken of, that the Jews sent the priests and Levites from Jerusalem to John, through the [question]: “Who are you?” wishing to learn if he would confess himself to be the Christ.

7. “And they asked him: What then? Are you Elias? And he says: I am not.” Who among those hearing Jesus speaking concerning John, “If you are willing to receive it, he himself is Elias who is going to come,” would not look to inquire how, to those asking, “Are you Elias?” John says: “I am not”? And how is it necessary to understand John himself to be the Elias who is going to come, according to that which was said by Malachi, which is as follows: “And behold, I send to you Elias the Thesbite, before the great and manifest day of the Lord comes, who shall restore the heart of a father to a son, and the heart of a man to his neighbor, lest I come and strike the earth utterly”? And [concerning] the prayer regarding the angel of the Lord who appeared to Zacharias standing at the right of the altar ^D

^A of the incense, the discourse of the angel to Zacharias points to something similar to that which was said by Malachi through these words: “And your wife Elizabeth shall bear you a son; and you shall call his name John,” and after a few things: “He himself shall precede before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to prepare a people fitted for the Lord.”

To the first point, then, someone might say that John himself was unaware that he was Elijah; and perhaps those who favor the opinion of those who posit transcorporation ^B will use this reasoning, as if the soul successively puts on bodies, being entirely forgetful of its former life. But these same [people] will also say that some of the Jews, assenting to this dogma, said concerning the Savior that perhaps he was one of the ancient prophets who had risen not from the tombs, but from birth. For how could it be possible, when Mary was clearly known to be his mother, and Joseph the carpenter was assumed to be his father, for them to think he was some one of the prophets raised from the dead? And using that testimony of Genesis, “I will blot out every resurrection,” ^C they will establish in the contest a man standing by this dogma, one skilled at solving—from the divine Scriptures—fallacious probabilities brought forth.

But another ecclesiastic, rejecting that argument which establishes transcorporation as false, and not admitting that the soul of John was ever Elijah, will make use of the aforesaid discourse of the angel, who did not name the soul of Elijah at the birth of John, but rather [his] spirit and power, through these words: “And he himself shall precede before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,” ^D being able to demonstrate through infinite places of the Scriptures that the spirit is one thing, and that which is named the power of the spirit is another, and the soul is another—of which it is not the opportune time to bring forth many [things] in the midst now, lest we stretch out the discourse to an immense length. It will have sufficiently great force for the present to persuade [one], indeed, that the power differs from the Spirit, [to quote] that: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you”; and to show, indeed, that those spirits which are in the prophets (as they have been granted to them by God) are as it were their possessions, [to quote] that: “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets,” and that: “The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha.” For in this way, he will say, there will be nothing absurd in the fact that John, converting in the spirit and power of Elijah the hearts of the fathers to the children, was called Elijah, not because of his soul, but because of the spirit and power.

^A For the sake of confirmation, he will use this reasoning: If God, being the Lord of all, becomes familiar to the saints and is thus named the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, how much more might the Holy Spirit, having become familiar to the prophets, be considered their spirit, so that in this way it might be called the spirit of Elijah and the spirit of Isaiah? The same ecclesiastic will also say that those who suspected that Jesus was one of the prophets risen from the dead could have been deceived, both because of the aforementioned dogma and because of the suspicion that he was one of the prophets; but besides the fact that they thought he was one of the prophets and had risen from the tomb, they might also have erred and held false opinions ^B by being ignorant of who was called his father and who his mother. Regarding that verse in Genesis about the word "resurrection," the ecclesiastic will approach it by using this testimony: "God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew," where the word "resurrection" is placed in the context of a birth. Consequently, he will answer the first objection in a different way than the one who suspects transcorporation, saying that by what has just been proven—that John is in some sense the Elijah who was to come—he answered the priests and Levites, "I am not," having discerned the intention of their question. For this first inquiry made to John ^C by the priests and Levites did not intend to learn whether the same spirit was in both, but whether John was that very Elijah who had been taken up, now appearing according to the expectation of the Jews without a birth—of which those sent from Jerusalem were perhaps ignorant. To this question he rightly replies, "I am not," for the Elijah who was taken up had not changed his body and become the person called John. But the first person whose reasoning we have set forth, who thinks that transcorporation is supported by this, dwelling on the examination of the wording, will say to the second that it is not consistent that the son of Zacharias, so great a priest, born in ^D old age to both parents beyond all human expectation, should be unknown to so many Jews who were in Jerusalem and to those sent by the Levites and priests themselves, who did not know that he had been born, especially since Luke testifies that "fear came on all who lived around them" (it is clear he means Zacharias and Elizabeth), "and all these things were reported throughout all the hill country of Judea." But if the birth of John from Zacharias was not unknown, and the Jews from Jerusalem sent via the Levites and priests to ask, "Art thou Elijah?", it is clear that they said this while thinking the dogma of transcorporation to be true, as if it were ancestral and not foreign to the secret teaching tradition among them. For this reason he also says, "I am not."

^A Since John does not know his own former life, these accounts possess no small degree of probability. Once again, therefore, the man of the Church will raise a question against that former position: if he is the prophet—the one illuminated by the Spirit, the one prophesied by Isaiah, the one foretold by such a great angel that he would be born before he was even conceived, the one who received from the fullness of Christ and partook of such great and mighty grace, the one who understood that the truth came through Jesus Christ, the one who recounted such great things about God and His Only-begotten who is at the bosom of the Father—is it fitting that he should lie, or even hesitate, not recognizing what he was? For one ought to withhold assent regarding more obscure matters, and neither affirm nor deny the proposition. But how would it not be reasonable, if this was the dogma of many at that time, for John to hesitate concerning himself, wondering whether his soul had once been in Elijah? Furthermore, the man of the Church will call upon that former interlocutor to inquire from those who profess to know the secrets of the Hebrews whether any such dogma exists among them; for if it appears nowhere that this is the case, it is clear that the reasoning of that former position has been dissipated. Nevertheless, the man of the Church will use the solution we explained earlier, while also demanding that the intention of the questioners be brought into the open. For if those who sent them knew, as I have proved, that John was born of Zacharias and Elisabeth—and much more so those who were sent, being of the priestly line, for whom the clear and wondrous offspring of their kinsman Zacharias could not have been hidden—what were they thinking when they asked, "Art thou Elijah?" ^B Being men who had read that Elijah had been taken up into heaven and who were awaiting his coming? Perhaps, then, since they expect Elijah before Christ at the time of the consummation, and Christ after Elijah, they appear to be asking in a more figurative way: "Art thou the one who proclaims the message that is to come before Christ at the time of the consummation?" And he answers knowledgeably to this, "I am not." Furthermore, the man of the Church, pressing on to the points raised by the other who attempts to show that the birth of John, having become so manifest, could not have escaped the priests, because "all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judæa," (Luc. 1, 65) will say that many have been deceived by a similar error regarding the Savior; since "some said he was John the Baptist, others Elijah, others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets" (Matth. XVI, 14), just as the disciples said when the Lord asked them upon coming into the parts of Cæsarea Philippi. And even Herod, saying, "Whom I beheaded, John, he himself has risen from the dead" (Marc. VI, 16), seems to show that he was ignorant of what was being said by those who were asking, "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James, and Joseph, and Simon, ^C and Judas; and are not his sisters all with us?" ^D Nothing, then, is more worthy of wonder...

just as it was in the case of the Savior, ^A that while many knew of his birth from Mary, others were deceived, than that the same should be true in the case of John; for while some were not unaware of his birth from Zacharias, others doubted whether the Elias who was expected had appeared in the person of John. And there is not even more room for doubt regarding John—whether he might be Elias—than there is regarding the Savior—whether he might perhaps be John. Regarding Elias, indeed, it ^B was easy to refute his form from the description alone, and not from sensory perception, because of the passage: "A hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins." But the form of John was perhaps already known, and not being similar to the figure of Jesus, it none the less provided a suspicion to some that perhaps John had risen from the dead and was being called by the name Jesus. And concerning a change of name, for some reason—I know not whence, nor by what motive—the Hebrews have handed down the tradition that Phinees, the son of Eleazar (who ^C beyond doubt extended his life until the time of many judges, as we have read in the book of Judges), is the same as Elias, and that the immortality promised to him in the book of Numbers, by the so-called "peace" (covenant), came because he had zeal; for which reason, moved by divine zeal, he pierced the Midianite woman and the Israelite, and caused the so-called wrath of God to cease, according to what is written: "Phinees the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, turned away my wrath, because he was zealous with my zeal." It is no wonder, therefore, if those who assume that Phinees and Elias are the same—whether they speak correctly or not (for it is not our present ^D purpose to examine this)—thought that John and Jesus were the same person. Or perhaps they were in doubt about this matter and wished to learn whether John and Elias were the same. But, beforehand, in other places, the account regarding the substance of the soul, the principle of its formation, its entry into this earthly body, the apportioning of the life of each, and its departure thence, must be examined more carefully and investigated at greater length; and whether it is possible for it to be introduced a second time into a body, or not; and if in the same period and in the same order; and whether into the same body, or another; and if into the same, whether it remains the same in substance but changes in quality, or remains the same both in substance and in quality; and whether it will always use the same body, or change it; in which matters it will also be necessary to examine what truly constitutes "transcorporation" and how it differs from "incorporation."

It will also be necessary to set forth the arguments of those who desire, according to the Scriptures, for the soul to be sown with the body, and the things that follow from them; and, in short, the discourse concerning the soul, which is vast and difficult to interpret, if it is to be gathered from what is scattered here and there in the Scriptures, requires a specific treatise. Wherefore now, according to what has emerged from the questions examined concerning Elijah and John, having examined the problem briefly, let us move on to the following matters. ^A To him who says that he who introduces the transmigration of souls keeps the world incorruptible... ^B 8. "The Law and the prophets were until John," and what else could we call John but a prophet, just as his father Zacharias, filled with the Holy Spirit, prophesying says: "And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways"? Unless, perhaps, someone might take the word "will be called" as not being spoken for what is "you will be," and this is especially the case because the Savior said to those who believed him to be a prophet: "But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet." It must be observed, however, that the words "Yes, I tell you" establish that John is a prophet, and it does not take away his being a prophet. But if, besides being a prophet, he is also called by the Savior "more than a prophet," how then, if he is a prophet, when the priests and Levites asked, "Are you the prophet?" did he answer, "No"? It must be said to this, that it is not the same thing to say "Are you the Prophet?" [with the article] and "Are you a prophet?" [without the article]. (92) We have observed similar things before, examining what is the difference between "the God" [with the article] and "God" [without the article], and "the Word" and "Word." Since, therefore, it is written in Deuteronomy: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers like me; you shall listen to him. And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be cut off from his people," there was an expectation of someone who was specifically a prophet having something similar to Moses, that is, to act as a mediator between God and men, and having received the new Testament from God, to deliver it to those being taught; and in each of the prophets the people of Israel knew that no one of them was the one prophesied by Moses. ^C Just as, therefore, they were in doubt about John, whether perhaps he was the Christ, so too [they doubted] whether [he was] the prophet. And it is not surprising if they were not accurate in their investigation of whether he himself was the Christ and the prophet, those who were in doubt about John as to whether he himself was the Christ; for it follows from the doubt about this one that they were ignorant that the same person is the Christ and the prophet. But the difference between "the Prophet" and "a prophet" escaped many, as it did Heracleon, who says in these very words: "As therefore John (93) confessed that he was not the Christ, but did not...

[admit to being] a prophet or Elias." It would have been his duty, having interpreted the passage thus, to investigate further as to whether John was speaking the truth when he said he was not a prophet, nor Elias. But he, not having considered these passages in the commentaries he left behind, passed over such important matters without examination, saying only a few things, and those very hastily examined, which we shall discuss presently.

9. *Then they said to him: Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?* By this, those who were sent mean in effect: "We came here with the intention of learning what we suspected you were, but we discovered that you are not that. It remains, therefore, for us to hear from you who you are, so that we may report your answer about yourself to those who sent us."

10. *I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight the way of the Lord, as Isaiah the prophet said.* Just as He who is properly the Son of God, not being different from the Word ^B (for He himself was in the beginning, the Word who was with God, the Word [who] was God), makes use of a word, so John, the minister of that Word (if we are to understand the Scripture properly), not being different from a voice, makes use of a voice that manifests the Word. Having grasped the prophecy spoken about himself in Isaiah, he says that he is a "voice"—not a voice crying *in* the wilderness, but the "voice of one crying in the wilderness"; ^C namely, of Him who "stood and cried: If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink," saying also this: "Make straight the way of the Lord, make straight His paths. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and all crooked things shall become to a straight way." For just as it is written in Exodus that it was said by God to Moses: "Behold, I have made you a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet," so we must understand by analogy to this, even if the similarity does not fit in every respect, the relationship of John to the Word God who is in the beginning; for John was a voice pointing out and manifesting that Word. Therefore, it is with great fitness that Zacharias is visited with no other punishment (when he said to the angel: ^D "By what shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in her days") than the deprivation of speech, because he did not believe in the springing forth of the Word [Logos/voice] according to the declaration of Gabriel to him: "Behold, you shall be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things happen, because you did not believe my words, which shall be fulfilled in their time." And when this Zacharias, having asked for a writing tablet, wrote saying: "John is his name," and everyone wondered, he recovered his voice. "For his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue, and he spoke, blessing God." As for those disputing [concerning] how it should be understood that the Word...

as being the Son of God, the points which have been presented have shown [the answer] according to the appropriate sequence. Since "John came as a man sent from God to bear witness concerning the light, that all might believe through him," we must understand the voice to be that which alone is able worthily to contain the Word being announced—which is John—and we shall understand this especially if we call to mind what we have reviewed before, while explaining the words, "That all might believe through him," regarding the passage: "This is he of whom it is written: Behold, I send my angel before your face, who shall prepare your way before you." ^B It is well, furthermore, that he does not say "a voice of one speaking in the desert," but "of one crying in the desert." For one who cries, "Prepare the way of the Lord," also speaks; but it may happen that someone might say this same thing without crying. But he cries and shouts, so that even those who are far from the speaker may hear, and those who are dull of hearing may understand the magnitude of the things being said, the voice being uttered with magnitude, bringing aid both to those who have receded from God and to those who have lost the acuteness of their hearing. For this cause, too, "Jesus stood and cried out, saying: If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink." For this cause ^C John "also bears witness of him, and cries out, saying." For this cause God commands Isaiah to cry with the voice of one saying, "Cry out," to which Isaiah replies, "What shall I cry?" But even if the intelligible voice of those who pray is not altogether great or prolonged, nor have they augmented the cry and shouting, God nevertheless hears those who pray in this manner, saying to Moses, "Why do you cry to me?"—for he had not cried out sensibly; for it is not written in Exodus that Moses cried out sensibly, although by his prayer he had cried out with that great voice which God alone hears. For this cause David also says: "With my voice I cried to the Lord, and he heard me." There is need for the voice of one crying in the desert, ^D where a soul [devoid] of God and truth (for what other desert is harsher than a soul that is destitute of God and all virtue?), because it still walks crookedly and is in need of instruction, is invited to direct the way of the Lord; which way that person directs who does not imitate the tortuous path of the serpent, whereas he who is contrary to this perverts it. Wherefore, such a man is rebuked along with those like him by that [word]: "Why do you pervert the straight ways of the Lord?"

11. The way of the Lord is directed in two ways: first, according to contemplation, which is manifested in truth without any admixture of falsehood; and second, according to action, if anyone, after sound contemplation, renders that which is appropriate to action.

in accordance with the sound reasoning regarding things that ought to be done. And that we may understand more accurately the text: "Make straight the way of the Lord," ^A it will be opportune to adduce what is said in the book of Proverbs: "Do not deviate either to the right or to the left." For in deviating to either side, one has lost the ability to keep it straight, and is no longer worthy of being looked upon when he oversteps the straightness of the path. "For the Lord is righteous and has loved righteousness, and His countenance has seen uprightness," ^B—that is, He enlightens that which He beholds. For this reason, he who is under this surveillance, receiving benefit from the care of that surveillance, says: "The light of your countenance has been signed upon us, O Lord." Let us, therefore, stand according to the things said by Jeremiah, upon the ways, and seeing, let us inquire after the everlasting paths of the Lord, and let us see which is the good way, and let us walk in it; just as the apostles took their stand, and inquired after the everlasting paths of the Lord, the patriarchs, and the prophets; and having inquired into their writings, they afterwards, by understanding them, saw the good way, Jesus Christ, who said: "I am the way," and they walked in it. For a good way is that which leads to the good Father the good man, who brings forth good things from his good treasure, and the good and faithful servant. But this way is narrow, as the many are not able to traverse it, and [it is] also pressed by those who use violence ^C to walk through it; for it is not said that it is "crushing," but "pressed." For the living way feels the habits of those who walk upon it if one has not put off the sandals from his feet, nor genuinely accepted that the place in which he stands, or even through which he walks, is holy ground. It will also lead to the Life, being Him who said: "I am the life." For the Savior, in whom is all excellence, is many according to conceptions. For this reason, to him who has not yet arrived at the end, but is still progressing and advancing, He is the way; but to him who has already put off all mortality, He is the life. Walking this way, one is taught to carry nothing into it, possessing bread and things pertaining to life, because in it one can have need of nothing, as the enemies can do nothing in it; and for this reason he needs neither staff, and ^D because it is holy, neither sandals.

12. Yet it is possible for the text, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness," and what follows, to be equivalent to saying: "I am he of whom it is written: 'The voice of one crying,'" as if John were the one crying, and the voice of this one were crying in the wilderness: "Make straight the way of the Lord." But Heracleon, discoursing more blasphemously regarding John and the prophets, says that the Word is the Savior;

^A but that the Voice in the wilderness is that which is signified through John, and that the sound is the entire prophetic order. Against whom it must be said: just as if a trumpet gives an uncertain sound, no one prepares himself for battle, and he who possesses knowledge of mysteries or prophecy without love has become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal; so, if the prophetic voice is nothing other than a sound, how can the Savior, referring us to it, say: "Search the Scriptures, for you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify of me," and: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me," and: "Well did Isaiah prophesy concerning you, saying: 'This people honors me with their lips'"? For I do not know if anyone can reasonably concede that an uncertain sound is to be praised by the Savior, or whether it is possible to prepare oneself from the Scriptures—as if from the voice of a trumpet to which we are referred—for the war against opposing powers, if the sound has given an uncertain voice. And in what way, if the prophets did not possess love, and for that reason sounded like brass or clanged like a cymbal, does the Lord refer us to their sound, as those men have interpreted it, so that we might receive benefit from it? Again, I do not know how he states without any proof that the voice, being more suited to the Word, becomes the Word, as if he were transforming a woman into a man. Furthermore, as if he had the authority to establish dogmas, and to acquire faith for himself, and to make progress, he says that it will happen that the sound is changed into a voice, placing the voice passing into the Word in the place of the disciple, and the sound passing into the voice in the place of the servant. ^B And if he had offered any probable reasons for these assertions in any way whatever, we would have labored to refute them. But a bare and simple denial is sufficient for refuting these claims. But come, let us now discuss that which we had deferred inquiring into in the preceding matters: how he was moved. For the Savior, according to Heracleon, calls him both a prophet and Elijah; but he himself denies both of these. And when the Savior calls him a prophet and Elijah, he does not teach about him personally, he says, but about the things concerning him; but when he calls him "greater than the prophets" and "among those born of women," then he characterizes John himself. But John himself, he says, being questioned about himself, answers about himself, and not about the things concerning him. ^C But we have applied great diligence regarding these matters to the best of our ability, leaving nothing unexamined, so that the terms, as they call them, might be compared with those things which were articulated by Heracleon: since he does not have the authority to say whatever he pleases. For by what reason does he not even attempt to prove in the slightest way that this (that John, insofar as he is a prophet, and Elijah, and the voice of one crying in the wilderness) is from the number of the things concerning him, but rather uses an example, that the things concerning him are as it were clothing of his? ^D And if he were asked about the clothing, whether he himself were the clothing, he would not have answered "Yes." For how can being Elijah, who is to come, be the clothing of John? I do not at all see it as according to him; perhaps, as we have been able to narrate, in the power and spirit of Elijah,

^A this spirit of Elijah is in potentiality the spirit of the soul of John. But those who wish to demonstrate why priests and Levites were those sent by the Jews to interrogate John, would not say it badly, that therefore those from this order were sent, because it was fitting that they, persevering constantly in the worship of God, should be concerned and inquire about these matters. Nor did he express very exquisitely that John was of the Levitical tribe, as we inquired when we were previously in doubt: for if those who were sent had known John and his origin, what room would they have had to inquire whether he himself were Elijah? Again, in those words: ^B "Art thou that prophet?" not thinking that anything special is signified by the addition of the article, he says that they asked whether he were a prophet, wishing to learn a matter common to many. Furthermore, not only Heracleon, but, as far as I have been able to see, all also who think differently from us, inasmuch as they cannot distinguish a very small and slight doubt, have surmised that John is greater than Elijah and all the prophets, because of that which is said: "Among those that are born of women there is not a greater than John," not seeing that the truth of the saying, "there is not a greater than John among those that are born of women," comes about in two ways: ^C not only by his being greater than all, but also by there being some who are his equals. For it is true that, while many prophets are equal to him, there is no one greater than him on account of the grace given to him. But he thinks that the statement that he is greater is confirmed because he was prophesied by Isaiah, just as if no one of the number of those who at one time prophesied had been deemed worthy of this honor: truly as if despising the Old Testament, as they call it, and not observing that Elijah himself had been prophesied. For Elijah is prophesied by Malachi, saying: ^D "Behold, I send you Elijah the Tishbite, who shall turn the heart of the father toward the son." And Josiah, as we read in the third book of Kings, is prophesied by name by the prophet who had come from Judah, saying, when Jeroboam was also present by the altar: "Thus saith the Lord: Behold, a son is born to David, Josiah by name." Some say also that Samson was prophesied by Jacob, saying: "Dan shall judge his own people, as if he were one tribe in Israel," since Samson, having come from the tribe of Dan, judged Israel. And let these things be said in refutation of the prophecy [of the one] who gave his opinion that no one except John was prophesied, [having] said these things in his wish to explain what is [the meaning of]: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness."

^A 13. *And those who were sent were of the Pharisees.* And they asked him and said to him: "Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor that prophet?" Those who had sent from Jerusalem the priests and Levites to question John, having learned as to who John was and who he was not, very decorously kept quiet: acting as if in agreement through their silence, and indicating that they accepted what they had heard—that it was fitting for the voice crying in the wilderness to baptize, for the making straight of the way of the Lord. But the Pharisees, being—in accordance with their name—divided in a way and seditious, showed that they did not hold the same opinion as the Jews in the capital city, nor with the ministers of the divine cult, the priests and Levites, by sending those who, as if rebuking and, as far as lay in them, hindering the baptizing, asked: "Why then do you baptize, if you are not that Christ, nor Elijah, nor that prophet?" ^B And perhaps if we connect into one body the things written in the Gospels, we might say that they spoke these things now, but later, I know not how, after they had given themselves to be baptized, they heard from John that saying: "Brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Therefore, be producing fruits worthy of repentance." For these things were said by the Baptist in Matthew, when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to the baptism: since obviously they did not have fruits of repentance, and were boastfully vainglorious among themselves because of Abraham as their father—wherefore they are sharply rebuked by John, who had the zeal of Elijah according to the communion of the Holy Spirit. For that is a rebuking utterance which says: "Do not think to say among ^C yourselves: 'We have Abraham as our father'"; but a didactic one is that which says that the faithless (called stones because of their stone heart) can be changed, by the power of God, from stones into children of Abraham, since they were in the eyes of the prophet, not fleeing from his divine gaze. For which cause it is said by him: "I say to you that God is able to raise up from these stones children to Abraham." And because, not having brought forth fruit worthy of repentance, they come to the baptism, most appropriately it is said to them: "And now the axe is laid to the root of the trees: every tree therefore not bringing forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire," ^D as if he were saying directly to them: Since

you have come to baptism without having brought forth the fruit of repentance, you are a tree not making good fruit, to be cut down by the sharpest and most robust axe of the living Word, which is effective and sharper than any two-edged sword. Luke also brought forward ^A the account of the Pharisees concerning themselves through the following: "Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. And the Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself: God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." Since, because of these words, the publican went down to his house justified rather than him, it is added that "every one that exalteth himself shall be abased." As hypocrites, therefore, according to the Savior’s ^B reproving words to them, they come to baptism, not hiding from him who baptizes that they still had the poison of vipers and asps under their lips: "For the poison of asps," he says, "is under their lips." And since they truly had poison, like the poison of a serpent, they expressed this also through this bitter interrogation: "Why then baptizest thou, if thou be not the Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" To whom I would say: As if Christ and Elias and the prophet were baptizing, while the voice of one crying in the wilderness had not received this authority: Inhumanly, O good men, you examine the messenger sent before the face of Christ ^C to prepare his way before him, being ignorant of all the mysteries concerning his place. For Christ—being Jesus, even if you do not wish it—himself did not baptize, but his disciples; he himself being that prophet. From where has it been believed by you that Elias is to baptize the one who is to come, when not even the wood placed upon the altar in the times of Ahab, which was in need of a bath in order to be consumed when the Lord appeared in fire, did he baptize? For he commanded the priests to do this, and not only once, for he says: "Do it the second ^D time," and when they had done it the second time, "and do it the third time," and they did it the third time. He, therefore, who did not himself baptize then, but gave over the work to others, how was he about to baptize when he arrived according to the things said by Malachi? Christ, therefore, does not baptize in water, but his disciples; for himself, he reserves to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. But Heracleon, accepting the statement of the Pharisees as rightly said, concerning the fact that it is owed to Christ, and Elias, and every prophet to baptize, says in these very words that to them alone it is owed to baptize; and though he has just now been refuted by us from the things we have said, and especially because he has understood "the prophet" more commonly (for he cannot point out any of the prophets who baptized), not unpersuasively does he say...

to the Pharisees, not as those wishing to learn, but as those wishing to inquire out of their own craftiness. ^A

14. Since it seems necessary for us to bring forward the words of the Gospels similar to the context we have in hand (and this must be done point by point to the very end, so that things which appear to have a discrepancy may be shown to be consonant, and likewise so that things which appear to have something peculiar or private may be clarified), come, let us do this also in this place. For the verse, "The voice ^B of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight the way of the Lord," is said by the disciple John from the person of the Baptist; but in Mark, it is written as the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to the Scripture of Isaiah in this manner: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." However, "Make straight ^C the way of the Lord," which John cited, is not found in the prophet. Might it be, then, that John, abbreviating the passage, "Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God," wrote "Make straight the way of the Lord," because Mark has made it by gathering two prophecies spoken in different places by two prophets into one? "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way; the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths ^D straight." For "The voice of one crying in the wilderness" is written immediately after the history recounting that Hezekiah had recovered from his sickness; but "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face" is from Malachi. What John did in abbreviating the passage he cited, Mark himself also represented in other wording; for while the prophet says: "Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God," he (Mark) wrote: "Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." He did the same also in those words: "Behold, I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee," adding "before thee," which had not been placed by the prophet. Furthermore, applying diligence to the passage, "And they that were sent were of the Pharisees, and they asked him," we have prefixed the interrogation of the Pharisees (because Matthew was silent about it) to those things which were written to have occurred in Matthew, saying that, since John saw many...

^A of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to baptism, he said to them: "Brood of vipers," and the following; for it is logical first to have inquired, and then to have arrived. And this too must be observed: that while Matthew says that Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region about the Jordan were going out to John to be baptized in the river Jordan, confessing their sins, he says they heard no chiding or rebuke from the Baptist, but that only the many Pharisees and Sadducees who were seen coming heard: "Brood of vipers," and the rest. Mark says that no rebuke at all was said by John to those who had come, who were all of Judea and all the Jerusalemites, and were being baptized by him in the Jordan, and confessing their own sins, consistently with not even naming the Pharisees and Sadducees. Furthermore, it is necessary for us to set forth that both Matthew and Mark say that the whole of Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region about the Jordan—or the whole Judean countryside—and all the Jerusalemites, were being baptized while confessing their sins; but Matthew, though he introduces the Pharisees and Sadducees as coming to the baptism, does not introduce them as confessing their sins; therefore, it is likely and reasonable that this was the cause of their hearing: "Brood of vipers." ^B Do not suppose that we have inappropriately compared the things said by the four evangelists, while inquiring into what pertains to those who had been sent from the Pharisees and who questioned John. For if we have rightly applied the questioning of the Pharisees recorded by the disciple John to their baptism as it stands in Matthew, it was logical to examine the things concerning these places, and to set forth the observations we had found. Similarly to Mark, Luke also remembers the "Voice of one crying in the wilderness," in his own person, as follows: "The word of God came upon John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came to all the region of the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as it is written in the book of the sayings of Isaiah the prophet: The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." ^C Luke added also the remainder of the prophecy: "Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be humbled; and the crooked shall become straight, and the rough ways smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God." He, like Mark, having written: "Make his paths straight," truncates, as we said before, the phrase: "Make straight the paths of our God." And in the words: "And all the crooked shall become straight," he omits the word "all," along with many other things.

He further altered the phrase, using the plural "straight paths" instead of the singular "straight path." Moreover, instead of "the rough [shall become] plain," he wrote, "and the rough ways [shall become] smooth paths." And having omitted that, "and the glory of the Lord shall appear," he appended what follows: "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God." Such observations are useful for demonstrating how the evangelists condensed the prophetic writings.

Further, it should be noted that Matthew states that the words, "Progeny of vipers," and what follows, were said to the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to baptism, who were different from those confessing their sins and hearing nothing of the sort; whereas Luke writes that these things were said to the crowds going out to be baptized by him, not creating two ranks of those being baptized, as we find in Matthew. But he does so with good reason, because the crowds are not placed in a context of praise, as will be clear to those who observe it; he introduces the Baptist saying to the crowds, "Progeny of vipers," ^B and what follows.

Furthermore, to the Pharisees and Sadducees, it is said in the singular, "Produce fruit worthy of repentance" (25); but to the crowds, in the plural, "fruits worthy of repentance." For perhaps the more excellent fruit of repentance is required of the Pharisees, which is none other than Jesus and faith in Him; but from the crowds, who do not even have the beginning of good things, all the fruits of repentance are required. For this reason, the Baptist said to them in the plural, "Produce fruits."

Furthermore, it is said to these Pharisees: "Do not think to say within ^C yourselves: 'We have Abraham as our father.'" For the crowds are now just at the beginning, appearing to be introduced to the divine Word so as to approach the truth. Therefore, they begin to say within themselves, "We have Abraham as our father." But the Pharisees do not begin this, for they have long since supposed it. Yet both listen when the aforementioned stones are pointed out, as if from these (28) children of Abraham could be raised up, to be resurrected from insensibility and death.

Also, observe that to the Pharisees—according to what was said by the prophet: "You have eaten a lying fruit"—since they possess a lying fruit, it is said: "Every tree therefore that does not produce good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire." But to the ^D crowds, who produce no fruit at all, it is said: "Every tree therefore that does not produce fruit is cut down." For that which has no fruit does not have good fruit either; wherefore it is worthy to be cut down. But that which does have fruit does not necessarily have good fruit, and therefore it, too, is justly felled by the axe. But if we examine carefully the matters concerning the fruits, we shall find that it is impossible for one just beginning to be cultivated, even if it bears fruit, to bring forth good first-fruits. Love, however...

of the husbandman is satisfied at first to bring forth to him the fruits belonging to the stage of early cultivation; later, in due course, through the purifications appropriate to husbandry, he will reap, after whatever fruits may have appeared, good fruits. The Law also bears witness to this interpretation of ours, saying that he who has planted should leave what is planted unpruned for three years, its fruits not being eaten: "For three years," it says, "the fruit shall be for you unpruned, and shall not be eaten; but in the fourth year all the fruit shall be holy, praiseworthy to the Lord." Reasonably, therefore, is it said to the crowds without the addition of the word "good": "Every tree, therefore, that does not bear fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." ^A And that which consistently bears fruit similar to the beginning, being a tree that does not bear good fruit, is cut down and thrown into the fire, whenever, upon the arrival of the training that follows the triad, it happens in the fourth year not to bring forth fruit that is holy and praiseworthy to the Lord.

All these things, even if they seem to have been said by us by way of digression as we set forth also what is from the other Gospels, do not seem to me to be untimely, nor alien to the present investigation. For the Pharisees send to John after the priests and Levites sent from Jerusalem, having been sent to question him who he might be, inquiring: "Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?" And having questioned him here, they go on to be baptized, as Matthew records, and hear what is appropriate to their arrogance and hypocrisy. Since what was said to them was similar to what was said to the crowds, it was necessary to make a comparison and clarification of the passages; ^B when these things were done, the sequence of events compelled us to consider more. Moreover, we must necessarily add to what we have said that at John’s there are recorded two orders of those who send: one of the Jews from Jerusalem sending priests and Levites, and another of the Pharisees questioning why he baptizes. And we have returned [the answer] that after the questioning, the Pharisees arrive to be baptized. Perhaps, then, those from Jerusalem who sent before them, having accepted the words of John, as they were the first to send before the Pharisees, also arrive first. For Jerusalem, all Judea, and consequently all the region around the Jordan were being baptized in the Jordan river by him, confessing their sins; or, as Luke says: ^C "All the country of Judea and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were being baptized by him in the Jordan river, confessing their sins."

^A But neither Matthew, when he says to the Pharisees and Sadducees, "Brood of vipers," nor Luke, represents the crowds as hearing this same rebuke while they were confessing their sins. Yet it is worth inquiring how, when the whole city of Jerusalem, all of Judea, and all the region around the Jordan were being baptized in the Jordan by John, the Savior says: "John the Baptist has come neither eating nor drinking, and you say: He has a demon." And to those who asked: "By what authority are you doing these things?" He says: "I also will ask you one question, which if you tell me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John—was it from heaven or from men?" When they reasoned among themselves, saying: "If we say, from heaven, He will say: Why then did you not believe him?" ^B This doubt is resolved in this way: the Pharisees, as we observed before, who had heard "Brood of vipers" and not believed him, approach the baptism, fearing—as is probable—the crowd, and wanting to seem to wash themselves in accordance with the hypocrisy they showed them, so that they would not appear to be opposed to such great numbers. Thinking, therefore, that his baptism was from men and not from heaven, they are afraid to say this because of the crowd, lest they be stoned by them, which is what they suspect [would happen]. Thus, the words which the Savior spoke to the Pharisees are not contrary to what was written in the Gospels about the multitude of those who were baptized by John, especially since it was the audacity of the Pharisees to say that John had a demon and to claim that Jesus had performed his miracles by Beelzebul, the prince of demons.

15. John answered them, saying: "I indeed baptize you with water; but there stands in the midst of you one whom you do not know. He is the one who is to come after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." Indeed, Heracleon thinks that John is answering those who had been sent by the Pharisees according to what he himself wanted, and not to what they had asked, not noticing that he is accusing the prophet of ignorance if, when asked about one thing, he answers about another; for we must avoid this as a fault when we engage in conversation. ^D We, however, say that the response is most appropriate. For to the question, "Why then do you baptize, if you are not that Christ?" what else was it necessary to say other than to show his baptism to be more bodily? "For I," he says, "baptize in water." And having answered this to the question, "Why then do you baptize?" [he speaks] to the second, "If you are not that Christ," [and] he narrates praises concerning the primary and preceding substance of Christ, namely, that Christ has so much power that He is even invisible in His divinity, present to every man, and extended throughout the whole world; which is declared by the text: "He stands in the midst of you."

^A And lest anyone might suppose that the invisible One, who reaches every man and the whole world, is different from the One who assumed human flesh, appeared upon the earth, and conversed with men, he conjoins to the words, "He stands in the midst of you, whom you do not know," the phrase, "He who comes after me," meaning, "He who is to be manifested after me." Recognizing that His surpassing excellence is far above his own nature—a matter about which some were in doubt as to whether he himself might be the Christ—and wishing to show how far inferior he was to the magnitude of Christ, so that no one might think of him anything beyond what he sees or hears from him, he says also this: "Whose sandal strap I am not worthy to unloose," ^B hinting that he was not capable of unloosing and explaining the mystery concerning His incarnation (which is as it were bound and hidden to those who do not understand), so as to speak anything worthy of such an advent, which has been contracted into such brevity.

16. It is not inappropriate for us, as we examine the text, "I baptize in water," ^C to set forth the similar sayings of the Evangelists concerning this, and to compare them with the present passage. Matthew therefore says that when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to the baptism (following the rebuke about which we inquired): "I indeed baptize you in water for repentance; but He who comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire," ^D which is consonant with the discourse according to John, as he narrates the confession of the baptism in water to those who had been sent from the Pharisees. But Mark says, "John preached, saying: 'There comes after me He who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit,'" teaching that these things had been preached to many and to all who heard. Again Luke says that, as the people were in expectation, and all were reasoning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ, John answered, saying to all: "I indeed baptize you with water; but there comes He who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to unloose; He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire."

17. Since, therefore, we have the similar words of the four, come, let us see, as far as we are able, individually [...]

^A the meaning and differences of each word, beginning with Matthew, who is handed down as the first 39 of the others to have delivered the Gospel to the Hebrews, to those of the circumcision who believed: "I indeed," he says, "baptize you in water 40 unto repentance," as it were cleansing and turning [people] away from worse things, and inviting them to repentance; for I have come to prepare a people made ready for the Lord, and to prepare a place through the baptism of repentance for him who is to come after me, and who for this reason is much more powerful than my own strength and will benefit you better. For his baptism is not bodily, as it fills the one who repents with the Holy Spirit and with a more divine fire, destroying and consuming all that is material or earthy, not only in the one who has received it, but also in those who have heard it ^B and possess it. But the one who is to come after me is so much mightier than I, that I am not fit even to bear the things pertaining to the clothing of the lowest powers that are around him—which are not laid out naked, so that those who happen by could understand them—nor to sustain them. And I do not know which I should say: whether it is my great weakness, which is unable to bear even the cheap things of Christ (in comparison with the great things existing around Him), or the divinity of Him which is transcendent and greater than the whole world. For since I am one who received such great grace that I was deemed worthy of prophecy, which foretold my arrival into the life of human beings with the words: "I the voice of one crying in the wilderness," and, "Behold I send my messenger ^C before your face"; I, whose birth Gabriel, standing before God, wondrously announced to my father, who was in old age; I, at whose naming Zacharias immediately recovered his voice and the gift of prophesying through it; I, of whom my Lord has testified that no one greater than I has arisen among those born of women; I am not fit to bear even the sandals of His feet. But if not the sandals, what should be said of His garments? Who is so great that he could guard His whole robe? Who is he who will think that he can grasp the reason which the tunic, seamless from the top, possesses, because it is woven throughout? It must be observed that, while the four Evangelists say that John confesses he has come ^D to baptize in water, Matthew alone has added to this, "unto repentance," clearly teaching that the future utility of the baptism belongs to the intent of the one being baptized, which, reaching the one who repents, will become a harsher judgment for him who approaches without repenting. It is necessary to know that, just as the wonders performed by the Savior [are]... [index: entries preserved]

are signs of those who are always liberated by the Word of God from every sickness and infirmity, yet were no less beneficial even when performed corporally, by inviting those who were receiving the benefit to faith; so too the washing of water, being a symbol and mark of the purification of the soul washed from all filth of malice, nevertheless, even in itself, is a beginning and a fountain of divine gifts, on account of the power of the invocations of the adorable Trinity, to him who offers himself to the deity. "For there are divisions of gifts." ^B And the history recorded in the Acts of the Apostles bears witness to my statement, concerning how clearly the Spirit at that time descended upon those who were being baptized, the water having prepared the way for those who were sincerely approaching it; so much so that Simon the Magus was amazed and wanted to receive this grace from Peter, and wanted the most righteous thing through the mammon of iniquity. And this also must be noted, that the baptism of John was inferior to the baptism of Jesus given through his disciples. For instance, those in the Acts who had been baptized into John's baptism, and had not even heard whether there was a Holy Spirit, are baptized a second time by the Apostle. For the washing of regeneration ^C did not occur at the hands of John, but at the hands of Jesus through his disciples; and this washing is called the washing of regeneration, occurring with the renewal of the Spirit, who even now is bestowed, because he is from God, above the water, but not to all is he imprinted and generated after the water. And these things are for the examination of those [matters] in the Gospel according to Matthew.

18. Let us now also consider Mark, who wrote that John proclaimed saying: "There comes one mightier than me after me"; for this is equivalent to: "He who comes after me is mightier than I." However, [this is] no longer the same as when he says: "I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the strap of his sandals." ^D For it is one thing to carry the sandals, which are clearly already untied from the feet of the one who wore them; and another thing to stoop down to untie the strap of his sandals. And it is a consequence that none of the Evangelists falls into error or falsehood, as those who believe might say, that the Baptist said both things at different times, being moved according to one intention and another; for the Evangelists did not speak differently about the same things, as some expounders think, who are mistaken in not accurately

^A inquiring into the individual words or deeds. And while it is indeed a great thing to bear the sandals of Jesus, it is also a great thing, by bending down for the sake of beholding the image below, to loose—as one who looks with memory at each of the things said or done—every one of the obscure points concerning the mystery of the incarnation, which are, as it were, the thong of the sandals. For there is one bond of obscurity, just as there is one key of knowledge, which not even the one who is greater among those born of women is by himself capable of loosing or opening; but the One who bound and closed alone grants to whom He wills the power to loose and to open the thong of the sandals, and the things that are closed. And if the place concerning the sandals is mystical, it is not worth passing over either ^B. I therefore believe the incarnation, when the Son of God receives flesh and bones, to be one [part] of the sandals, and the descent into Hades—whoever that Hades may be—and the journey with the Spirit to the prison, to be the rest. Concerning the descent into Hades: "Thou shalt not abandon my soul to Hades," it is said in the fifteenth Psalm. And concerning the journey in the prison with the Spirit, in Peter, in the Catholic Epistle: "Being put to death indeed," he says, "in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit; in which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who were disobedient once, when the long-suffering of God was waiting in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared." He, therefore, who is able to set forth the reasons for both advents as is worthy, is capable of loosing the thong of the sandals of Jesus, himself also bending down in mind, and descending together ^C with the One who has descended into Hades, and descending from heaven and the mysteries concerning the divinity of Christ to His coming among us that necessarily took place, when He bound man. Moreover, he who [alt-version omitted] ^D

^A bound man also bound the dead: "For to this end Christ died and rose again, that He might have dominion over both the dead and the living" [Rom. xiv, 9]. And for this reason He bound both the living and the dead, that is, him who is on earth and him who is in Hades, so that He might have dominion over both the dead and the living. Who then is sufficient, having stooped down, to unloose the strap of such footwear, and having unloosed it, not to let it be, but according to a second sufficiency to take them up and to bear them, through carrying about in his memory what has been understood?

19. And let not that which is said similarly in Luke and John regarding "stooping down" be left unexamined ^B. Perhaps it is possible indeed for one having stooped down to unloose it according to what was said before; but it is also possible for one, while keeping the height of the distance and the interval existing from the Son of God, to find the unloosing of the footwear tied in the inquiry, so that, one having unloosed the same things of the separate footwear, he might see the Word of God naked in Himself from lower things.

20. John writes, "I am not worthy," which is not the same as those words: "I am not sufficient" ^C. For it is possible for one who is not worthy to become sufficient; and it is possible for one who is worthy not yet to be sufficient. For even if gifts are given for advantage, and not only according to the proportion of faith [Rom. xii, 6], it would be the work of a God who loves mankind, foreseeing harm from subsequent conceit or inflation, not to give sufficiency even to one who is worthy at times. But it is appropriate to the goodness of God to conquer in bestowing benefits the one on whom the benefits are bestowed, and to anticipate him who is going to be ^D worthy, and to adorn him with sufficiency, so that after sufficiency he may come to be worthy, and not entirely, by being worthy before the one bestowing, and having anticipated His graces, come to be sufficient. John, therefore, says that with the three he is not "sufficient," but with John he is not "worthy." Yet he who said that he was not yet sufficient is not excluded from having become sufficient, even if he were not yet worthy; and again, when he said he was not "worthy," he was not excluded—when he was not worthy—from having reached the point of becoming worthy. Unless perhaps someone will say, concerning the worthiness of the unloosing and bearing of them, that mortal nature, not being able, can never come to be sufficient to unloose the strap of the footwear and be worthy of it; but as many as we may contain, there still remains that which has not yet been understood: "For when a man has finished, then he begins; and when he stops, then he will be in doubt," according to the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach.

21. Let us discourse further on the sandals in the manner of the three ^A evangelists named, comparing them with that sandal which is mentioned in the singular number by the disciple John: "For I am not," he says, "worthy to unloose the strap of his sandal." Perhaps, then, conquered by the grace of God, he received a gift (not yet being, as far as he himself was concerned, worthy to unloose the strap of the other of the sandals), having perceived His advent among men, of which he also bears witness. But since there was lacking to him the comprehension of the things that were to follow, not knowing whether Jesus was even he who was to come to that place where he himself was to be beheaded after leaving prison, or if he ought to look for another, for this reason, hinting also at that hesitation which is more clearly declared to us later, he says this: "I am not worthy to unloose the strap of his sandal." And if anyone should think that this has been said by us too curiously, he will gather into the same [category] that which was said about the sandals and the sandal, so that he might, as it were, say: "I am in no way worthy to unloose the strap, not even at the beginning, of even one sandal." Or this is also how what was said by the four evangelists can be brought into one. For if John understood indeed the things pertaining to His advent here, but was in doubt ^B about the things that followed, he speaks the truth in saying that he is not capable of unloosing the strap of the sandals; for one who has unloosed one has not unloosed both. He also speaks the truth in saying "the strap of the sandal," since, as has been said before, he is still in doubt about whom it is that is coming, and whether he is the one to be expected there, or another.

22. But regarding that which follows: "In the midst of you stands one whom you do not know," these things must be discussed concerning the Son of God, the Word, through whom all things were made, subsisting substantially according to the underlying reality and existing the same with Wisdom. For He permeates through the whole machinery of the world, ^C so that the things which are always coming to be, come to be through Him; and concerning everything whatsoever you might bring forward, it will always be true: "All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing"; and that: "In wisdom have you made all things." But if He permeates through the whole creation and the entire fabric of the world, it is evident that He also stands in the midst of those who were asking: "Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor that prophet?" In the midst, I say, stands He, [that is, the Reason,] and the Son of God established by the Father everywhere. Or let those words, ^D "He stands in the midst of you," be understood thus: because you are men possessed of reason, therefore "He stands in the midst of you," for the reason that in the middle of the whole body is that most excellent part of the soul, which they call the governing part, as the Scriptures of inviolable faith show. Those, therefore, who have the Word in the midst of themselves, but do not understand regarding His nature, nor from what source and origin He has come

those in their heart. Those, therefore, who have the ^A Word in the midst of themselves, while meanwhile they do not discourse either on His nature, or from what fountain and principle He came, nor finally how He confirmed them—these do not know that He is in the midst of them. But John knows Him; for this saying, "Whom you do not know," uttered reproachfully to the Pharisees, shows that John accurately recognized whom they ignored. For which reason also the Baptist, recognizing Him, knew that He would come after him, existing in the midst—that is, after him and after the teaching given by him in baptism—arriving to those who had been washed according to the Word. ^B But the same thing is not signified in this place by the word "after" as when Jesus sends us after Himself; for there, we are commanded to be after Him, in order that, proceeding in His footsteps, we may arrive at the Father. But here, in order to declare that Jesus comes after the doctrines of John (since he came "that all might believe through him") to those who had been prepared beforehand, and purified through the lesser things, to the perfect Word. The Father, therefore, primarily stands immutable and unalterable; and His Word also stands, always saving, even if He becomes flesh, and even if He is in the midst of men, not grasped, nor even seen. He stands also teaching, inviting all to drink from His abundant fountain; for "Jesus stood and cried saying: If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink."

25. But Heracleon, on the text "There stands in the midst of you," ^C interprets: "He is already present, and is in the world, and among all us men," and is already visible to you all. By this interpretation he takes away what we have taught, namely that He runs through and permeates the whole world. For one must say to him: When is He not present? When is He not in the world? Especially when the Gospel says: "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world knew Him not." And for this reason, even these to whom that word is addressed, "Whom you do not know," do not know Him, because they had not yet departed from the world, and the world knew Him not. But at what time did He cease to be among men? Or was He not in Isaiah saying: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me," and: "I became manifest to them that sought me not"? ^D Let them say also whether He was not in David, who does not speak of himself when saying: "But I was appointed king by Him upon Sion His holy mountain," and whatever things are written in the Psalms in the person of Christ? And since I can evidently teach that Jesus is always among men, to convince [those who would deny it]...

that] he is not correctly [interpreted as] saying "He is already present, and is in the world, and in man," to explain Heracleon's [exegesis of the words] "He is standing in your midst," it is not said implausibly by him that the words "He who is coming after me" declare that John is the forerunner of Christ; for he truly is, as it were, a servant running ahead of the Lord.

But he interpreted the words "I am not worthy to unfasten the strap of his sandal" far more simply, [believing] that by these words the Baptist confesses that he is not even worthy of [performing] the lowliest service toward Christ. Yet, after this interpretation, he added not unplausibly: "I am not worthy that for my sake he should come down from his greatness and receive flesh, as a sandal, regarding which I am unable to render an account, nor to recount, nor to explain the plan of it." ^B But the same Heracleon, having interpreted the sandal to be the world, more clumsily and boldly crossed over to a more impious opinion, namely, that all these things ought to be understood also regarding this person, who is known through John. For he thinks that the Creator of the world, being inferior to Christ, confesses this through these words, which is the most impious thing of all. For the Father who sent him, the God of the living, as Jesus himself testifies, of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob—and is for this reason Lord of heaven and earth because He has made them—He is also the only good [God], and is greater than the one who was sent. ^C But if it has been thought out by Heracleon, as we said before less prudently, that the whole world is also the sandal of Jesus, I do not believe we ought to agree with him. For how, with such an understanding, will that be preserved which is: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is the footstool of my feet," which testimony Jesus uses as if the Father had said it? "For do not swear," he says, "by heaven, because it is God's throne; nor by the earth, because it is the footstool of His feet." And how, with the whole world thought to be understood as the sandal of Jesus, will that which is said be understood: "Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord"?

Nevertheless, it is worth considering whether, because the Word and Wisdom, that is, the Son of God, pervades through the whole world, and the Father is in the Son, as we have set forth, the words ought to be understood [that way]; or [whether it is] He who primarily girds all creation, because the Son is in Him, [who] granted to the Savior, as being second after Him and as being God the Word, to attain through all creation. ^D And it will be especially worth seeking, for those able to conceive of the unceasing motion of such a great heaven, which carries along with itself such a multitude of stars from east to west, as to what is the inherent...

^A force that is so great and of such a kind existing in the whole world. For any other to presume to say this besides the Father and the Son, is perhaps not pious.

24. *These things happened in Bethabara, beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.* That it is written in almost all copies, "These things happened in Bethany," we are not ignorant, and it seems that this happened even ^B earlier; and indeed we have read Bethany in Heracleon. But we were persuaded that one ought not to read "in Bethany," but "in Bethabara," having arrived at the places to inquire into the footsteps of Jesus, and of his disciples, and of the prophets. For Bethany, as the same evangelist says, the hometown of Lazarus, and Martha, and Mary, is distant fifteen stadia from Jerusalem; ^C from which the Jordan river is far distant, let us say, by about one hundred and eighty stadia. But not even is there a place of the same name as Bethany near the Jordan. However, they say that Bethabara is shown by the bank of the Jordan, where they record that John baptized; and the interpretation of the name is consistent with the baptism of one who prepares a people fitted for the Lord; for it is translated into "house of preparation," whereas Bethany into "house of obedience." For where else was it necessary for the messenger ^D sent before the face of Christ to baptize, to prepare his way before him, than in the house of preparation? And what hometown is more appropriate for Mary, who had chosen the good part, which was not to be taken away from her, and for Martha, distracted by the receiving of Jesus, and for their brother, said to be a friend by the Savior, Lazarus, than Bethany, the house of obedience? Therefore, carefulness regarding names is not to be despised by one who wishes to understand the holy scriptures without omission. Indeed, that errors have frequently arisen in the Greek copies regarding names in various places, one might also be persuaded of this from the Gospels; the stewardship concerning the pigs cast down from the cliff and choked in the sea by demons is recorded as having taken place in the region of the Gerasenes. But Gerasa is a city of Arabia, having neither sea nor lake nearby. And the evangelists, being men who knew the region of Judea diligently, would not have spoken such an obvious and easily refuted lie. But since

^A we have found in a few copies "into the region of the Gadarenes," and to this it must be said that Gadara is indeed a city of Judea, near which are the celebrated hot springs, but there is by no means a lake with precipices adjacent to it, nor is there a sea. But Gergesa, from which the Gergesenes [come], is an ancient city near the lake which we now call Tiberias, near which a precipice lies adjacent to the lake, from which it is shown that the swine were cast down by the demons. And Gergesa is interpreted as "a dwelling of those who cast out," being a name perhaps derived prophetically from that which the citizens ^B of the swine did to the Savior, when they besought him to depart from their borders.

And it is possible to see a similar error concerning names in many places of the Law and the Prophets, as we have discovered by learning from the Hebrews and comparing our copies with theirs, authenticated by those versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus which have not yet been corrupted. Therefore, we shall set forth a few things for the sake of those who love learning, that they may be more attentive regarding these matters. One of the sons of Levi, the first, is named Gerson in most copies, instead of Gersom, ^C being homonymous with the firstborn of Moses, for both were born in a strange land because of their sojourn (for which reason the name is readily assigned). Again, the second son of Judah is called Aunan by us, but among the Hebrews it is Onan, which means "their sorrow." Besides these, in the departures of the children of Israel in the Book of Numbers, we find that they departed from Sochoth and pitched camp in Buthan; but the Hebrew, instead of Buthan, says Aiman. And what need is there for me to waste time setting forth more things, when the truth concerning names is ^D available for anyone who wishes both to search it out and to know it?

But one must especially be suspicious of those places in the Scriptures where there is a list of many names, as in the Book of Joshua those concerning the division of the inheritance, and in the First Book of Paralipomenon from the beginning in order nearly up to the account of Saul... Likewise also in

^A Ezra. And one must not despise names, since useful things are signified by them in the interpretation of places. But it is not the right time now to examine the discourse concerning the contemplation of names, while omitting the matters set before us.

Jordan is interpreted as "their descent." ^B Adjacent to this, if I may so say, is the name Jared, which itself is also interpreted as "descending," since he was born to Mahalaleel, as it is written in the book of Enoch (if one is inclined to accept the book as holy), in the days of the descent of the sons of God to the daughters of men. Some have supposed that this descent signifies the descent of souls into bodies, assuming that the "daughters of men" is used metaphorically for the earthly tabernacle. If this is the case, what would be the river of "their descent" to which, coming to it, one must be cleansed—not having descended by one's own descent, but by the descent of men—if it is not our Savior, who distinguishes those who receive their inheritance under Moses from those who receive their own portions ^C through Jesus? Therefore, the streams of this river that has descended make glad, as we found in the Psalms, the city of God—not the sensible Jerusalem (for it does not have a river flowing beside it)—but the blameless Church of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus our Lord being the cornerstone.

However, Jordan should be understood as the Word of God who became flesh and tabernacled among us, and Jesus as the one who gave the human nature he assumed as an inheritance. This is also the cornerstone, who himself, having become in the divinity of the Son of God, is washed by that which was assumed by him, and then receives the pure and guileless dove of the Spirit, ^D tethered to him and no longer able to fly away. "For upon whom," he says, "you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit." For this reason, having received the Spirit remaining upon him, Jesus is able to baptize those coming to him in the Spirit that remains in him.

But beyond the Jordan, in the regions leaning toward the parts outside Judea, John baptizes in Bethabara, being the forerunner of him who came not to call the just, but sinners to repentance, teaching that those who are strong have no need of a physician, but those who are ill.

Concerning the Watchers, and: And it came to pass, when the sons of men were multiplied...

^A 26. Moreover, it is probable that someone who has not understood the various notions concerning the Savior might take offense at the explanation given regarding the Jordan, because John says: "I baptize with water; but he who is coming after me is mightier than I; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." To whom it must be said that, just as the Word of God, being drinkable, is to some water, to others wine gladdening the heart of man, and to others blood, on account of the text: "Unless you drink my blood, you shall not have life in yourselves"; and even being called food, it is not considered the living bread and flesh in the same way; so it is the same baptism of water, and of the Spirit, and of fire, and to some also of blood. Regarding this last baptism, he says, as some have interpreted, in the passage: "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" Consistent with this, the disciple John wrote in his Epistle, ^B saying that the Spirit, the water, and the blood are the three that have become one. And since he confesses himself to be the way and the door, it is altogether clear that he cannot be the door for one to whom he is the way, nor the way for one to whom he is already the door. All, therefore, who are being initiated into the first elements of the oracles of God, at the voice of him who cries in the desert: "Make straight the way of the Lord," approaching beyond the Jordan near the house of preparation, let them diligently prepare themselves so that, by a preceding preparation, they may be able to grasp the spiritual discourse which is imprinted through the illumination of the Spirit. Next, therefore, gathering the points relevant to the proposed subject regarding the Jordan, let us consider the river more accurately. ^C God, therefore, leads His people through the Red Sea by means of Moses, having made the water itself a wall for them on the right and on the left, but through Jesus He leads them across the Jordan. Having read the Scripture, Paul, no longer warring according to the flesh (for he knew that the Law is spiritual), teaches us to interpret spiritually what happened in the crossing of the Red Sea, saying in the first Epistle to the Corinthians: "For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the ^D spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ." Following this, let us also ask to receive from God the spiritual understanding of the crossing of the Jordan through Jesus, saying that Paul could have said about this, too: "I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that all our fathers crossed through the Jordan, and all were baptized into Jesus in the Spirit and in the river." The figure was Moses, who succeeded the one who had succeeded to the administration of the Law through

the evangelic preaching of Jesus Christ. ^A For this reason, even if all those were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, that baptism of theirs has something bitter and salt in it, since they were still fearing their enemies and crying out to the Lord and saying to Moses: "Because there were no tombs in Egypt, have you brought us out to die in the desert? Why have you done this to us, bringing us out of Egypt?" But the baptism unto Jesus, in the river that is truly sweet and potable, has many superior qualities compared to that one, since now the order of the worship of God is being made clear and is receiving its proper arrangement. For the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord our God, and the priests and the Levites, go forward, with the people following those who minister to God, and that [people] following those who possess the command concerning purity. Jesus says to the people: "Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow; the Lord will do wonders among you." He commands the priests to lead the way before the people with the Ark of the Covenant, ^B when also the mystery of the dispensation of the Father toward the Son is manifested, being highly exalted by Him, who gave him this gift, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. For through these things those things are made plain which are recorded in Jesus: "And the Lord said to Jesus: Today I will begin to exalt you before the children of Israel," and one must listen to our Lord Jesus saying to the children of Israel: "Come here, and hear the word of the Lord our God; by this you shall know that the living God is in your midst." For when we are baptized into Jesus, we shall know that the living God is in us. And there, while they were performing the Passover in Egypt, they made the beginning of the exodus; but in the case of Jesus, after the crossing of the Jordan, ^C on the tenth of the first month they camped at Gilgal, when it was first necessary for him who had taken the lamb to name those who were to feast after the baptism of Jesus. And the children of Israel are circumcised by Jesus with a sharp stone, wherever those who had gone out from Egypt were uncircumcised; and the Lord confesses that He has taken away the reproach of Egypt on the day of the baptism into Jesus, when Jesus was purifying the children of Israel. For it is written: "And the Lord said to Jesus the son of Nun: On this day I have taken away the reproach of Egypt from you." Then the children of Israel performed the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month, ^D with much more joy than in Egypt, when they also ate unleavened bread from the grain of the holy land.

^A And with a new food, better than the manna. For not when they had received the land of promise did God feed them with baser things, nor, with such a leader as Jesus, do they obtain a bread that is inferior. This will also be clear to one who understands the true and holy land, namely, the Jerusalem that is above. For this reason, it is also set down in the same Gospel: "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and died; he who eats this bread shall live forever." For the manna, although it was a bread given by God, was a bread of progress, a bread served to those who were still under tutors, a bread most harmonious for those under guardians and stewards. But the bread recently harvested in the holy land from the grain of the land, through the providence of Jesus—while some had labored, and his disciples were reaping—was a bread far more vital than that, ^B bestowed upon those capable of receiving their paternal inheritance by reason of their perfection. Therefore, he who is still being educated by that former bread may be subject to death; but he who has reached the bread that comes after it, and has eaten thereof, shall live forever. I believe that all these things have been brought forward not untimely, while we inquire concerning the baptism which was performed by John at the Jordan in Bethabara.

27. ^C But this also must be observed: that when Elijah was about to be taken up in a whirlwind as if into heaven, taking his mantle and wrapping it, he struck the water, which was divided hither and thither; and both passed over, he himself and Elisha—for he became more fit to be taken up having been baptized in the Jordan, since the passing through the water, which was more wonderful, is what Paul called baptism, as we set forth above. For the sake of this same Jordan, Elisha comes to the place where he desired to receive the gift through Elijah, saying, "Let there be, I pray, a double portion of thy spirit upon me." And perhaps for this reason he received a double gift in the spirit of Elijah upon himself, because he crossed the Jordan twice: once with Elijah, and a second time when, having taken the mantle of Elijah, he struck the water and said: "Where is the God of Elijah, even he?" And he struck the waters, and they divided hither and thither.

28. ^D But if anyone is offended by the saying, "he struck the water," because of what has been handed down by us above concerning the Jordan—namely, that the Jordan was a figure of the Word of the Son of God, who rendered himself humble just as we are—it must be said that it is clear from the Apostle that the Rock was Christ, which is struck twice with the rod, so that they might be able to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them. There is, therefore, a striking that comes from those who love, in their questioning—before learning the object of their search—of things that seem contrary.

^A And God delivers us from these, sometimes granting drink to the thirsty, and sometimes, where something is impassable and inaccessible to us because of its depth, He makes it passable through the division of the Word, with most things being clarified for us by that discursive reasoning.

Furthermore, in order for us to accept the interpretation concerning the most drinkable and most gracious Jordan, it is useful to set forth the account of Naaman the Syrian who was cleansed from his leprosy, and the things that are said regarding the rivers found among the enemies of true religion. Now, concerning Naaman, it is written that he came with horses and chariots, and stood at the doors of the house of Elisha; and Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying: "Go, wash seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh shall be restored to you, and you shall be clean." Then Naaman also becomes angry, ^B not understanding that our Jordan is the one that frees from impurity those who are unclean because of leprosy, and heals them, not the prophet; for it is the task of a prophet to send one to that which brings healing. Not understanding, therefore, the great mystery of the Jordan, Naaman says: "Behold, I was saying that he would certainly come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and place his hand upon the place, and remove the leprosy." For to place a hand upon the leprosy and to heal it was the work of my Lord Jesus alone, who not only said to him who asked with faith, "If You will, You can cleanse me," the words, "I will, be clean"; ^C for in addition to the word, He also touched him, and he was cleansed of his leprosy.

Moreover, Naaman was still erring, and did not see how the other rivers are inferior to the Jordan in regard to healing those who are afflicted with disease, and he praises the rivers of Damascus, Arbana and Pharpha, saying: "Are not Arbana and Pharpha, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Shall I not go, and wash in them, and be cleansed?" For just as there is no one good except One, God the Father, so among the rivers there is no one good except the Jordan, which is also able to free from the leprosy the one who, with faith, washes his soul in Jesus. I believe that it is because of this that it is written that all those who sat by the ^D rivers of Babylon remembered Zion; for having tasted other waters after the holy Jordan, those who were led into captivity because of their wickedness come into a remembrance and longing for their own saving river. Therefore, regarding the rivers of Babylon, they say: "There we sat" (for they were unable to stand), "and we wept." And Jeremiah also rebukes those who desire to drink Egyptian water, and who leave behind the water that comes down from heaven, which gets its name from that descent—the Jordan—saying: "And now what is it to you in the way of Egypt, to drink the water of Geon, and of the

^A water of the rivers? Or, as the Hebrew has it, "to drink the water of Seor," of which it is not presently our intention to speak.

29. That, however, this discourse is not about the rivers which are perceived by the senses, but rather primarily concerns the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures inspired by God, may be seen from those things prophesied by Ezekiel to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, which are as follows: "Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh, king of Egypt," the great dragon, sitting in the midst of his rivers, and saying: "My rivers are mine, and I have made them for myself; and I will put hooks in your jaws, and I will glue the fish of your river to your wings, and I will draw you out of the midst of your river, and all the fish of your river, and I will cast you down swiftly; and all the fish of your river shall fall upon ^B the face of the field, and you shall not be gathered, nor shall you be clothed." For what physical dragon was ever recorded as having been seen in the physical river of Egypt? But perhaps the river of Egypt is a place of our enemy, the dragon, who was not even able to kill the child Moses. But just as there is a dragon in the Egyptian river, so is there God in the river that makes glad the city of God; for the Father is in the Son. For this reason, those who approach Him to be washed lay aside the disgrace brought from Egypt, and become more fit to be lifted up, and are cleansed from leprosy, and receive a doubling of gifts.

Concerning the river of Egypt and the dragon

And some there are who inquire about its fish; and what need is there for me to construct further arguments for those things which do not require construction? Concerning whom it is said: "Who is wise, and shall understand these things? Or prudent, and shall know them?" ^C The dragon, and the dispersion, and the destroyers.

Now, regarding the words "Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh, king of Egypt." Who is there, when reading of a dragon living in the Egyptian river, and the fish lurking in its scales, or of the mountains of Egypt being filled from the goings-forth of Pharaoh, who is not moved thereby to inquire: Who is the one filling the mountains of the Egyptians with such foul-smelling goings-forth? And what are the mountains of the Egyptians, and who are the rivers in Egypt, about which the aforementioned Pharaoh boasts, saying: "The rivers are mine, and I have made them"? Or who is ^D the one who answers in proportion to what will be demonstrated by the interpretation?

Moreover, those who are cleansed from the most defiling leprosy receive a doubling of gifts and become prepared for the reception of the Holy Spirit, the spiritual dove not flying over to any other river. Therefore, having more worthily contemplated the Jordan, the washing within it, Jesus being washed in it, and the house of construction, let us draw from the river as much benefit as we need.

50. On the next day, he sees Jesus coming toward him. Previously, the mother of Jesus, as soon as she conceived Him, went to the mother of John, who was herself pregnant; and when He who is being formed grants a more precise formation to him who was being formed, He works to make him conformed to His own glory, so that because of the commonness of the form, John might be thought to be the Christ, and likewise ^B Christ be thought by those who do not distinguish between the image and him who is according to the image to be John risen from the dead. But now, after the previously examined testimonies of John concerning Him, Jesus Himself is seen by the Baptist coming toward him.

It should be observed, however, that in that former instance, because of the voice of Mary’s salutation having reached the ears of Elisabeth, the infant John leaps in his mother’s womb—at that time, as if from the earth, receiving the Holy Spirit—for, it says: "It happened that when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and cried out with a loud voice and said." But here, John sees Jesus coming toward him and says: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." For by hearing, one is first instructed about superior things, and after this, one becomes an eyewitness of these very things.

That John is indeed helped toward his formation by the Lord, who, while still being formed, went in his mother to Elisabeth, will be evident to him who grasps what we have discussed—when we said that John is the voice and Jesus the Word. For a great voice arises in Elisabeth, who was filled with the Holy Spirit because of Mary’s salutation, as the text itself shows, having it in this manner: "And she cried out with a loud voice" (that is, Elisabeth) "and said." For the voice of Mary’s salutation, having reached the ears of Elisabeth, filled John with itself; for this reason, John leaps, and the mother becomes as it were the mouth of the son and a prophetess, crying out with a loud voice and saying: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Now, therefore, it is possible for us to clearly perceive both Mary’s journey to the hill country with haste, and her entry into the house of Zechariah, and the salutation with which she greets Elisabeth. For all these things happen so that Mary may make John (even while still existing in his mother’s womb) a participant of the power which he has from Him...

had received ^A from the prophetic gift. And most fittingly, indeed, are such dispensations accomplished in the hill country, since nothing great can be grasped by those men who are to be called "valleys" on account of their humility. And where, then, after the testimonies of John—the first being that which is spoken by him who cries out and acts as a theologian, the second being to the priests and Levites sent by the Jews from Jerusalem, and the third being to those who, being from the Pharisees, asked more sharply—Jesus is already seen by him who had borne witness, coming toward him as he was still progressing and becoming better; of which progress and improvement the day which is called "the morrow" is a symbol; for as if in the following illumination, and on the next day on account of those things which had preceded, Jesus comes, not so much as one unknown, ^B as one who stood in the midst even of those not knowing [Him], but already coming and being seen by him who had previously proclaimed these things. On the first day, therefore, the testimonies occur; and on the second, Jesus comes to John. On the third, however, John, while standing with two disciples and having looked upon Jesus as He was walking, and having said, "Behold the Lamb of God," urges those present to follow the Son of God. And on the fourth, wishing to go out into Galilee, He who went out to seek that which was lost finds Philip and says to him, "Follow me." And on the day from the fourth, which is ^C the sixth of those counted by us from the beginning, the marriage takes place in Cana of Galilee, concerning which we shall know when we have arrived at that place. It must also be observed in passing that the more eminent Mary comes to the inferior Elisabeth, and the Son of God to the Baptist, from which we derive the benefit that we should be diligent in bringing aid to those who are inferior and in maintaining humility.

51. Now, because it is not stated from where the Savior comes to John the Baptist, we learn this from what Matthew wrote: ^D "Then Jesus arrives from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him." But Mark also added the location of Galilee, saying, "And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized in the Jordan by John." Furthermore, Luke left out the place from which Jesus comes, passing over what others had written, but what we did not learn from them, he himself teaches us: that, namely, after the baptism, as He was ascending, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form, like a dove. Again, when Matthew says that the Lord was hindered by John, saying that the Ser-

Savior needs ^A to be baptized by Thee, and Thou comest to me! no one added anything, so that they might not repeat the same things. Indeed, to that which was said to him by the Lord: "Suffer it now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness," only Matthew writes it down.

52. And He says, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." [John i, 29]. Now since five animals are offered upon the altar, three terrestrial, and two winged, it seems to me a subject worthy of inquiry why the Savior is called by John the "Lamb," and none of the others; and furthermore, why he called Him a lamb from the genus of sheep, when these terrestrial animals are offered in each of the three ages. Now these five animals are: the calf, the sheep, the goat, the turtle-dove, the pigeon. And these are the three ages of each of the terrestrial ones: ^B calf, ox, bullock; ram, lamb, sheep-kin; he-goat, goat, kid; but of the winged ones, of the pigeons indeed a pair of nestlings only, of the turtle-doves a perfect pair. It must be inquired, therefore, by one who wishes to accurately grasp the spiritual principle concerning the sacrifices, of what heavenly things these were an exemplar and shadow, and for what reason the Word ordained that each of the animals be sacrificed, and privately those things concerning the lamb must be gathered together. That the discourse concerning the sacrifices ought to be understood concerning certain heavenly mysteries, the Apostle says somewhere: [Heb. viii, 5] "Who serve unto the exemplar ^C and shadow of heavenly things," and again: [Heb. ix, 23] "It is necessary therefore that the exemplars of the things in the heavens be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." To be able, having found each of these, to explain the spiritual law which has come to pass through Jesus Christ (the truth being much greater than human nature), is the work of no one else but the perfect man, of him who has his senses exercised for the discernment of both good and evil, and who is able from a truthful disposition to say: [1 Cor. ii, 6] "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect." And concerning these matters and those very similar to them we can truly say: [ibid. 8] "Which none of the princes of this world hath known."

53. Yet we find the lamb offered in the ^D sacrifices of the continual oblation. For it is thus written [Exod. xxix, 38 sq.]: "And these are what thou shalt do upon the altar: two lambs of the first year without blemish, day by day, upon the altar continually, a burnt offering of continual oblation. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning, and the second lamb thou shalt offer in the evening; and a tenth part of fine flour mingled with beaten oil, with the fourth part of an hin of wine for one lamb. And the other lamb thou shalt offer in the evening, according to the first sacrifice,"

and according to its drink offering. Thou shalt make a savour of sweet scent, a burnt offering unto the Lord, a sacrifice of ^A *endelechismos* (continual offering) throughout your generations, at the doors of the tent of meeting before the Lord, where I shall be known to thee there, so as to speak unto thee. And I will arrange there for the sons of Israel, and I shall be sanctified in my glory; and by sanctification I shall sanctify the tent of meeting." But what other intelligible victim can there be—for the one who is master of speech and who discourses—of that *endelechismos* [that is, of a continual oblation], than the more flourishing word, symbolically called the lamb, which, at the same time as the soul is illuminated, is offered (for this can be the morning victim of the *endelechismos*), and is again offered at the end of the mind’s dwelling in higher things? For the soul cannot always suffice to be in the more excellent things, as long as it has happened to be joined to this earthly and burdensome body.

54. ^B But if anyone asks what a holy man should do in the time that is between morning and evening, let him transfer his discourse from those things which pertain to the Mosaic cult, and then let him follow the more excellent evangelical things. For just as the priests of the old law offer as the beginning of their sacrifices the victim of the *endelechismos*, and subsequently, before the evening victim of the *endelechismos*, they offer the others according to the law—such as those for a trespass, or for involuntary sins, or for a peace offering, or for prayer, or for jealousy, or for the Sabbath, or for the new moon, and the rest, which it would take a long time to recount at present—so also we, having begun our offering from the word concerning the image, who is Christ, ^C shall be able to discourse about many and most useful things. And again, concluding in those things which are of Christ, we shall arrive at the evening and as it were the night, coming also to bodily things.

55. But if we examine the word regarding Jesus being shown by John, according to that: "Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world," ^D insisting upon the very dispensation of the bodily advent of the Son of God to the life of men, we shall deem that this lamb is no other than this man; for this [man] "as a sheep was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb," saying: "I as an innocent lamb am led to be sacrificed." For which reason also in the Apocalypse a lamb is seen standing as though slain. This lamb, then, having been slain, has become a purification, according to certain secret reasons, of the whole world, for which, on account of the love with which the Father pursues the human race, He also accepted slaughter, redeeming us, who were sold to sins, by His own blood from him who had seduced us. Furthermore, He who was offering this lamb for a sacrifice was God in man,

^A the great high priest, who declares this through these words: “No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and again I have power to take it up.” 11

56. And indeed, to this sacrifice the others are related; those that are legal are symbols: but I consider the other sacrifices related to this one to be the shedding of the blood of the noble martyrs, who are not seen in vain by the disciple John standing beside the heavenly altar. “Who is wise, and will understand these things? Prudent, and will know them?” 12 But regarding this, it is necessary to accept, even if only to a small degree, a more contemplative account of such sacrifices, which purify those for whom they are offered. One must consider the account of the daughter of Jephthah who was ^B offered as a burnt offering, by means of which vow he defeated the sons of Ammon. She herself agreed, and was offered as a burnt offering, saying to her father who had said, “I have opened my mouth against you to the Lord; and if you have opened your mouth against me to the Lord, do your vow.” 13

Now, through these things, an appearance of great cruelty is introduced against Him for whom such sacrifices are performed for the salvation of men; but we need a more magnanimous mind, and one that looks at these things in a way that provides a solution [to arguments] against providence, so that we may at once defend ourselves concerning all matters, as being more mysterious and above human nature: “For great are the judgments of God and hard to tell; ^C therefore, untaught souls have gone astray.” 14 And it is also testified among the nations that many people, when pestilential diseases had attacked their own countries, gave themselves up as sacrifices for the common welfare. The faithful Clement—whom Paul witnesses to, saying, “With Clement and the rest of my coworkers, whose names are in the book of life” 15 —admits that these things happened in this way, not without reason, believing the histories.

The one who wishes to accuse the mysteries that are hidden from the many, and the matters regarding the martyrs, has a similar absurdity; for it is more pleasing to God that we choose to undergo even the harshest tortures while confessing His divinity, than to be delivered for a brief time from so many things that are considered evils, by ^D yielding in our speech to the will of the enemies of the truth. Therefore, we must believe that the destruction of malevolent powers occurs through the death of the holy martyrs—for instance, by their endurance, their confession up to death, and their zeal for piety, which blunts the sharpness of the plot of those who persecute the one who is suffering, so that, as their power is blunted and weakened, others, more numerous than those who were overcome, may be released and freed from that burden.

^A Indeed, even those who have suffered do not, after that, fall into punishments, although they have not weakened the ones who exerted themselves to do worse things to others; they no longer fall into the suffering, because he who brought forward such a sacrifice has conquered this opposing power, in the way that I used a useful illustration—if I may use it—for the matters at hand: If someone kills a venomous animal, or lulls it to sleep by some power, emptying it of its poison, he benefits many who would have suffered something from it later, had it not been killed or lulled to sleep or emptied of its venom. And if it becomes manifest to someone who has been bitten regarding the injury from the bite, and upon being set free he fixes his gaze upon the dead creature that harmed him, or steps upon the dead, or touches the dead ^B or tastes a part of it, there would be both healing and benefit to the one who had previously suffered, from the one who killed what was harmful. Something like this must be understood to happen through the death of the most holy martyrs, with many receiving help from their death through a certain ineffable power.

37. Furthermore, we have spent much time speaking of the martyrs and recounting the stories of those who perished on account of pestilential conditions, so that we might see the excellence of him who was led as a sheep to the slaughter and as a lamb before the shearer was silent, in the discourse concerning the martyrs and in the account concerning those who died due to pestilential states. For if these things are not recorded in vain by the Greeks, and if those things have been well spoken concerning the martyrs as having become the offscouring of the world and for this reason called the ^C offscourings of all by the apostles, what must one suppose and how great is the matter concerning the Lamb of God, who was sacrificed for this reason, that he might take away the sin not of a few, but of the whole world, for which he also suffered? “For if anyone commits a sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he himself is the propitiation for our sins; not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world;” since the Savior is of all men, and especially of the faithful; who with his own blood blotted out “the handwriting that was against us” and “took it out of the way,” so that not even the tracks of the sins committed might be found, even if they had been erased, “and nailed it to the cross”—he who, having despoiled principalities and powers, made a show of them in boldness, triumphing over them ^D in the wood. And we are taught to be confident, therefore, while being afflicted in the world, knowing the cause of [index: entries preserved]. It is also reported and attested among the gentiles that many, when pestilential diseases broke out in their homelands, have given themselves up as sacrifices for the common good. And the faithful Clement, to whom testimony is borne by Paul, admits that these things happened in this way, not unreasonably believing the histories.

^A states having displayed publicly triumph on the wood. Therefore, being afflicted in the world, we are taught to be of good courage, having learned the reason for this courage: that the world has been conquered, and it is manifest that it has become subject to the One who conquered it. For this reason, all nations, having been released from those who previously held sway, serve Him, because "He delivered the needy from the mighty," by His own passion, "and the poor who had no helper." This Savior, then, having humbled the slanderer—inasmuch as He humbled Himself—remains with the intelligible Sun before the most glorious Church (which is tropically called the Moon) from generation to generation. And when the Lord, mighty and strong in battle, had removed His enemies by His passion, being in need of a purifying draught—which can be given to Him by the Father alone on account of His brave deeds—He prevents Mary from touching Him, saying: "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go, and tell my brethren: I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." But when He proceeds, laden with victories and trophies, with the body which had risen from the dead (for how else ought one to understand, "I have not yet ascended to my Father," and, "I am ascending to my Father"?), then some powers say: "Who is this that comes from Edom, with red garments from Bosor, so glorious?" And those who were escorting Him say to those who were set over the heavenly gates: "Lift up your gates, you princes, and be lifted up, you everlasting gates, and the King of glory shall enter in." ^B And they inquire further, as if, so to speak, beholding His right hand stained with blood, and Him wholly filled with the works of His brave deeds: "Why are Your garments red, as the treading of a wine-press full and trodden?" to which He answers: "I have trampled them." For truly, on account of these things, He had need to wash "His robe in wine, and His garment in the blood of the grape." For having taken our infirmities and borne our sicknesses, and having taken away the sin of the whole world, and having conferred so many benefits, perhaps He then received a baptism greater than any other that can be conceived by men, of which I believe He spoke: "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I constrained until it be accomplished!" For, in order that I may test the argument more boldly, ^C and persevere in face of what most people suspect, let those who think that His martyrdom is the greatest baptism—above which it is not possible to conceive of another—tell us why, after this, He says to Mary: "Do not touch me." For He ought rather to have offered Himself to be touched, inasmuch as He had received the perfect baptism through the ^D mystery of the passion.

perfectum, et lavisset in vino stolam suam, et in sanguine uvae vestimentum suum. ^A Then, as we have said, having performed the heroic deeds against his adversaries, he needed to wash « his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of grapes, » and to ascend to the Father, the husbandman of the true vine, so that, being washed there, after having ascended into the heights and led captivity captive, he might descend bearing the various gifts: the tongues divided to the apostles as of fire, and the angels who would be present in every action, protecting them. For before these dispensations, not yet being purified, they were not capable of the visitation of the angels—perhaps not even if the angels themselves had wished to be present to those who had not yet been properly instructed and purified by Jesus. ^B For it was the kindness of Jesus alone to eat and drink with sinners and tax collectors, and to offer his own feet to the tears of the repenting sinner, and even to descend unto death for the ungodly, not counting it a prize to be equal with God, but emptying himself, having taken the form of a servant. Yet, in performing all these things, he was fulfilling the will of the Father, who delivered him up for the ungodly, more than his own will. For the Father is good; the Savior is the image of his goodness; and as he bestows benefits upon the whole world—since God is in Christ reconciling the world to himself, which had previously become an enemy through wickedness—he bestows his benefits by a path and an order, not suddenly taking all his enemies as his footstool. For the Father says to him, the Lord of each one of us: « Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool. » ^C And this comes to pass until the last enemy, death, shall be destroyed by him. But if we consider what it means to be subjected to Christ (and this, especially from the words: « But when all things shall have been subjected to him, then the Son himself shall be subjected to him who subjected all things to him »), we shall understand, as is worthy of the goodness of the God of all, the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world. But the sin of all is not taken away by the Lamb, for they do not sorrow, nor are they tormented, until it is removed. For thorns are not only fixed, but are rooted more deeply in the hands of anyone who is drunken through vice and who has lost his sobriety—according to what is said in the Proverbs: ^D « Thorns grow in the hand of the drunkard »—how much pain they will cause in him who has allowed such plants into the body of his own soul, it is now most difficult to say. For it is necessary that he be cut away by the word of the living God, sharper than any two-edged sword, effective and more burning than any fire.

^A that rises above all fire, for whoever has admitted vice into the depth of his own soul, so that he has become earth yielding thorns. And it will be necessary for fire to be sent to such a soul, fire that finds the thorns and stands near them ^B and penetrates them through its own divinity, without burning the threshing floors or the ears of the fields. But indeed, there are many paths for the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world and begins this through his own slaughter; some are clear to the many, but others, hidden from the many, are known only to those judged worthy ^C of divine wisdom. For what need is there to recount by what paths someone among men comes to believe, when it is permitted to each one, while still in this body, to consider it for himself? Nevertheless, through the paths of believing, it is also permitted to take away sin, by scourges, through evil spirits, throughout most grievous illnesses, and most laborious infirmities. Who, then, knows what is even after these things? But it was ^D necessary, so that we might not reject one who seems to grasp the true understanding of that word which says: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” to discourse at greater length about these things, so that, knowing that it is possible to be rebuked by the wrath of God and to be corrected by the anger of God, due to His exceeding love for the human race, which allows no one to remain entirely unrebuked and uncorrected, we may do all things so that we may not need such rebukes and the correction which lies in the most harsh and troublesome circumstances.

58. The reader should also consider what has been said by us previously, with the addition of many examples, regarding what is signified according to Scripture by the word "world"; for I did not think it reasonable to repeat myself. We are not ignorant that some have interpreted "world" as the Church alone, as the world and ornament of the world; since it is also called the light of the world: "For you are," he says, "the light of the world." The Church is the world of the world, with Christ being the world and ornament of the Church, since He is the first light of the world. It must be considered whether Christ and His disciples are said to be the light of the same world; but that Christ is indeed the light of the world, perhaps He is the light of the Church; yet when His disciples are the light of the world, perhaps they are the light of those being called, who are distinct from the Church, just as it was said by Paul regarding these things in the preface of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, writing to "the Church of God, with all who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." If anyone suspects that the Church is said to be the light of the world—that is, of the rest of the race of men, the unbelievers—if indeed he interprets this prophetically on account of the discourse regarding the consummation, the saying perhaps has a place; but if he considers it as already having come to pass (since the light of someone illuminates that of which it is the light), let them show how the [light] of the...

^A rest of the human race is illuminated by the Church sojourning in the world. But if they cannot show this, let them consider whether we have correctly understood the Church to be the light, and those who call upon [Him] to be the world. The phrase which follows, situated in the Gospel according to Matthew, will set forth the exposition for one who searches the Scriptures with most diligence: "For you," he says, "are the salt of the earth"—perhaps understanding by 'earth' the rest of mankind, of whom those who have believed are the salt, being in fact the cause of the world's preservation through their believing; for then will the consummation be, if the salt has become tasteless, and there is no longer anything salting and preserving the earth. For it is clear that if iniquity abounds and love grows cold upon the earth (as even the Savior himself expressed a doubtful voice concerning those who will exist at the time of his own advent, saying, "But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith upon the earth?"), then will be the consummation of the age. Let the Church, therefore, be called 'the world' when it is illuminated by the Savior; but we inquire whether, in accordance with the text, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world," we ought to interpret the 'world' spiritually as the Church (with the taking away of sins being restricted to the Church alone). For how shall we interpret what is said by his disciple in the Epistle concerning the Savior, who is the propitiation for sins, as follows: "And if anyone has sinned, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins; ^B and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world"? And the passage in Paul, I think, is similar to this, as he says: "Who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." Again, Heracleon, coming to this passage, without any demonstration or adduction of testimonies, asserts that John speaks as a prophet saying: "Lamb of God"; but as a prophet more excellent than that, he says: "who takes away the sin of the world." And he thinks the former is said of his body, but the latter of that which is in the body, because a lamb is imperfect in the genus of sheep; and such also is the body by comparison with the one inhabiting it. "But if he wished," he says, "to attribute perfection to the body, he would have called the one to be sacrificed a ram." But I do not deem it necessary, after so many investigations made, to repeat the same things in this place, contending against those things which were spoken by Heracleon not very learnedly. Only let this still be noted, ^C that just as the world scarcely contained Him who emptied himself, so it was in need of a lamb, and not a ram, that its sin might be taken away. ^D There are missing the seventh, eighth, and ninth tomes.

ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN: TOMUS X

^A 1. "After this he went down to Capernaum, himself and his mother, and his brothers, and his disciples; and they remained there not many days. And the Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those who were selling oxen, and sheep, and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting; and having made a sort of whip from cords, he cast them all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the coins of the money-changers, and overturned the tables, and said to those who were selling pigeons, 'Take these things from here; do not make the house of my Father a house of trade.' His disciples remembered that it is written, 'Zeal for your house will consume me.' The Jews therefore responded and said to him, 'What sign do you show us that you do these things?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' The Jews therefore said, 'Forty-six years has this temple been building, and will you raise it up in three days?' But he was speaking of the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. And when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, at the feast, many believed in his name, seeing his signs which he was doing. But Jesus himself did not entrust himself to them, for the reason that he knew all, and had no need that someone should bear witness concerning man. For he himself knew what was in man."

^C The numbers recorded in the book of Numbers were rendered worthy of Scripture according to a certain proportion fitting for each thing. We must inquire whether any one of the books of Moses inscribed "Numbers" teaches the reasoning of numbers...

^A to those capable of investigating such things. These things are said by me to you at the beginning of the tenth volume, observing that the number ten is frequently endowed with an extraordinary prerogative in Scripture, as you too may diligently consider, while also hoping that you might receive something greater from God for this volume; and that this may come to pass, let us strive to offer ourselves with all our might to God, who desires to bestow the best things. But the book must be begun from here: "After this he went down to Capharnaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples; and they remained there not many days" ^B. The other three also, who wrote the Gospels, say that the Lord withdrew into Galilee after his struggle against the devil, but Matthew and Luke, having previously arrived in Nazareth, say that afterward, having left that place, he came and dwelt in Capharnaum. And Matthew and Mark also tell of a certain reason why he withdrew from there, namely, because he had heard that John had been delivered into prison by Herod. The words of Matthew are as follows: "Then the devil leaveth him; and behold, angels came and ministered unto him. But when Jesus had heard that John was delivered up, he withdrew into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capharnaum by the sea, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying: The land of Zabulon, and the land of ^C Nephthalim:" and after what is said in Esaias, he says: "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." But Mark: "And he was," he says, "in the desert forty days and forty nights, being tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels ministered unto him. But after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God, saying: The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent ye, and believe the Gospel." Then, having recounted about Andrew and Peter, James and John, he writes these things: "And entering into Capharnaum, straightway on the sabbath days he taught in the synagogue." But Luke: "And when the devil had ended," he says, "all the temptation, he departed from him for a ^D season. And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about, and he himself taught in their synagogues, and was glorified of all. And he came to Nazara, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day. And when he had taught the things that had been spoken by him in Nazareth, and the fury...

of those who were in the synagogue against him, so that they cast him out of the city, and led him ^A unto the brow of the hill on which their city was built, so that they might cast him down, » and « as he went, passing through the midst of them, the Lord departed, » he adds these things: « And he went down to Capharnaum, a city of Galilee, and was teaching them on the sabbath days. »

2. The truth concerning these matters ^B ought to be kept in those things which are perceived by the mind; or, if the dissonance is not resolved, one should not depart from the faith of the Gospels as if they were not true, or not written by a more divine Spirit, or (63) not recorded in a well-ordered manner; for in either way the Scripture is said to have been ordered. Let them tell us, those who accept the four Gospels and think that the apparent dissonance cannot be resolved by anagogy, besides the doubts already posed by us concerning the forty days of temptation, which can in no way have a place according to John, when the Lord was in Capharnaum: for if after the six days from that time, after Jesus was baptized, he was in Capharnaum (the dispensation and miracle in the marriage at Cana of Galilee having taken place on the sixth day), it is clear that he had neither been tempted, nor had he been in Nazareth, nor had John yet been handed over. ^C After Capharnaum, therefore, where he stayed not many days, when the Passover of the Jews was near, he went up to Jerusalem, when he cast out from the temple both the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the coins of the money-changers. Nicodemus, the ruler of the Pharisees, seems to have come to him at night in Jerusalem at the beginning (65), and to have heard these things which it is permitted to take from the Gospel. « After these things Jesus came, and his disciples, into the land of Judea; and there he stayed with them, and was baptizing, at which time John was also baptizing in Ænon near Salim (66), because there was much water there, and they were coming, and were being baptized. For John had not yet been cast into prison, » when a dispute also arose from the disciples of John with the Jews ^D about purification, and they came to John, saying concerning the Savior: « Behold, he is baptizing, and all are coming to him. » They had heard words from the Baptist which it is possible to take more accurately from the Scripture itself. But if, to us who inquire as to when Christ was first (67) in Capharnaum, they shall follow the wording of Matthew and the other two, they will say: after the temptation, when, leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capharnaum, which is a city by the sea; how will they say at the same time that what is said in

^A Matthew and Mark concerning his having heard that John had been delivered up, and having withdrawn into Galilee, ^B and that which is in John, occurring after other divine economies, near the dwelling in Capharnaum, together with the ascent to Jerusalem and the subsequent descent into Judea, are true, since John had not yet been cast into prison, but was baptizing in Aenon near Salim? And if one were to examine carefully the Gospels concerning the inconsistency in the history of still more such matters—which we shall endeavor to set forth individually to the best of our ability—he would either become dizzy and desist from affirming that the Gospels are true, or, arbitrarily choosing what pleases him, he will adhere to one of the Gospels, not daring to subvert the faith concerning our Lord entirely; or, accepting the four Gospels, he will conclude that the truth of them does not lie in their bodily forms and characters.

3. But in order to grasp some understanding of the intent and meaning of the Gospels concerning these matters, this is what we must say. Let it be that to certain ones who see God in the Spirit, and his words to the saints, and the presence by which he offers himself to them at special times of their progress (being many in number, in various places, and not having been affected by entirely similar benefits), the purpose is, I say, that each should declare individually what he sees in the Spirit concerning God, and his words, and the manifestations toward the saints, so that this one may declare what is said and done by God in this place to this righteous man, and that one may declare concerning other oracles heard or received, and another may wish to teach us concerning some third person beyond the two aforementioned. And let there be a fourth, doing the same as these three. Let these four agree among themselves concerning certain things suggested to them by the Spirit, and let them declare others in brief speech, so that their accounts may be of such a nature: "God appeared to so-and-so at such a time in such a place, and did such things for him; in such a way he appeared to him in such a form, and led him by the hand to this place, where he did such things." Let the second declare that God appeared at the same time those things were said to have occurred to the first, in a certain city to some second person (whom he himself chooses) who was in a place very far removed from the place of the first, and let him say that other words were spoken by God at the same time to the one whom we have posited as second. Similar things are to be thought of concerning the third and the fourth. But let them agree, as we said before, declaring true things about God and his benefits toward others, and in certain narrations which they themselves declare. Therefore, for one who thinks that the writing of these men is history, or is adapted through the image of history to certain true things, and who thinks that God is

^A in a place according to circumscription, and is unable to form in himself more numerous views of himself for more numerous people, or in more numerous places, or to say more things at once—it will seem impossible that these four whom I supposed are speaking the truth, because it is not easily done for God to be in this certain appointed time (since He is also considered being in a place according to circumscription) and to tell this one thing and that one thing to this person and that person, and to do this and the opposite of this, and, if I may say so, to be sitting and standing at the same time: if one says that at this time, while He was standing, He said these things and did these things in this place, while another says it while He was sitting.

4. As, therefore, the mind of the historians, wishing to teach us through the character and form of the things that were perceived ^B by their mind, would be found to have no disagreement if the four were wise, thus also must one understand it to be with the four evangelists, dealing as they do with many things performed and spoken by Jesus according to His miraculous and most wonderful power; sometimes they even append to the Scripture, along with a form of words as if concerning things sensible, that which was manifested to them purely and solely in the intellect. Now, I do not blame them in any way if they have transposed these things for the utility of a mystical consideration, that which, as far as the history is concerned, had happened in another way, so that they might narrate what happened in one place as if it were done in another; or what happened at one time, as if at another; ^C and that they should report with a certain alteration what had been pronounced in one way. For their purpose was to tell the truth, both spiritually and corporally, where it was permitted; but where it was not possible to have both, to prefer the spiritual over the corporal, the truth of the spiritual often being preserved in the corporal—as one might say—"lie." Just as if we should say from the history that Jacob said to Isaac, "I am Esau, your firstborn son" (Gen. xxvii, 19), ^D according to the spiritual understanding he spoke the truth, having already obtained the birthright which had perished in his brother, and having taken up the shape of Esau on the outside through the garment of the goat-skins, and having become Esau without the voice that praises God, so that there might be room for Esau to be blessed later. For perhaps if Jacob had not been blessed as Esau, Esau himself would not have been able to receive the blessing from himself. Jesus, therefore, is many things according to various notions, from which it is probable that the evangelists, taking different notions, sometimes even agreeing on some things, have recorded the Gospels; for example, it is true to say the things that are, according to the letter, contrary concerning our Lord, that He was born of David, and was not born

^A of David. For it is true that He was born of David (as also the Apostle says: “born of the seed of David according to the flesh”), if we grasp His bodily aspect; but this very same thing is false, if we understand His being born from the seed of David in terms of His more divine power. For He was determined to be the Son of God with power. And perhaps for this reason the holy prophecies ^B declare Him at one time a servant, and at another the Son; a servant, on account of the form of a servant, and because of His being of the seed of David; but the Son of God, according to His ^C first-begotten power. Thus it is true to call Him a man, and not a man: a man, indeed, according to that which is capable of death; but not a man, according to that which is more divine in man. Now I think that Marcion, too, in rejecting sound doctrine ^D and denying His birth from Mary, stated that He was not born from Mary according to His divine nature, and for this reason dared to delete these passages from the Gospel; and those who destroy His humanity, admitting only His divinity, seem to have suffered something similar to this, as do those who are their opposites, who obliterate His divinity, confessing Him only as the most holy and most righteous of all men. Even those who introduce the opinion of mere appearance—not understanding Him who “humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, even to the death of the cross,” and who imagined only that part of Him which is exempt from perturbations and is superior to any such calamity—to their own ability wish to deprive us of the most righteous of all men, through whom we are not able to be saved; for “as by one man came death, so also by one man came the justification of life.” For we would not have received any benefit from the Son of God had He not taken upon Himself a man, remaining as He was in the beginning with God the Father, and had He not assumed a man—the first of all, and more honorable than all, and more pure than all—who was able to contain Him; after whom each one of us shall be able to receive Him just as great and just as He was, if we have prepared in our soul a place suitable to His magnitude. And these things have all been said by me, wishing to explain, by the way of spiritual intelligence, the apparent discrepancy of the Gospels.

5. Furthermore, one must use an example of this kind regarding the same place, namely that Paul speaks of the carnal man as being sold under sin, and as not being able to judge anything.

^A And the spiritual man is able to judge all things, and to be judged by no one. And these are the voices of the carnal man: "For not what I will, that do I, but what I hate, that I do"; but of the spiritual man: "What I will I do, and what I hate I do not do." Indeed, even he who was caught up to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words, was another than he who said: "Concerning such a one I will boast, but for myself I will not boast." But if he also becomes as a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain the Jews; and to those under the law as under the law, that he might gain those under the law; and to those without law as without law—not being without law to God, but within the law of Christ—that he might gain those without law; and to the weak as weak, that he might gain the weak, it is clear that one must diligently examine the reasons for this matter, and that specifically in each instance, whether he makes himself as a Jew, or as under the law, or as if without law, or at times even makes himself weak. For example, that which he says by way of concession, and not by command, he says as one being weak: "For who," he says, "is weak, and I am not weak?" When he is shorn and offers an oblation, or circumcises Timothy, he becomes a Jew. But when he says to the Athenians: "I found an altar on which was inscribed: To the Unknown God. Therefore what you worship without knowing, this I announce to you," and that which follows: "As also some of your own poets have said: For we are also His offspring," he becomes as one without law to those without law, confirming piety by the testimony of the most impious, and he makes use of the one who says: "Let us begin from Jove—for we are also his offspring,"—abusing that hemistich for what he intended. Perhaps indeed there are times when he becomes under the law for those who are not Jews, but are under the law.

6. These examples are useful to us not only regarding the Savior, but also regarding the disciples, about whom there is also some dissonance according to the text. For perhaps Simon, who is found by his own brother Andrew, and hears, "You shall be called Cephas," is distinct in thought from him who is seen with his brother by Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee; and distinct also from him who together with that Andrew hears: "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men." For it behooved the One who ^B was speaking more reasonably concerning the Word who became flesh, and who for that reason did not record the birth of the Word who was in the beginning with God, nor him who was found by the sea and called from thence, but rather him who was found by the brother who had remained with Jesus at the tenth hour, and who because he was so found immediately received the name Cephas—for he who is seen by the One walking by the sea of Galilee, scarcely at any time and later receives that, "You are Peter, and upon this r..."

rock will I build my Church." And Jesus, according to John, is known by the Pharisees to be baptizing among his disciples, baptizing also along with other notable acts, and doing this; but Jesus, according to the three, in no way baptizes. Furthermore, John the Baptist also persists for a long time according to the homonymous evangelist without being thrown into prison. But according to Matthew, when Jesus is tempted, he is delivered into prison; on account of which Jesus also withdraws into Galilee, avoiding being thrown into prison—when the Baptist is not even found to have been delivered into prison ^B according to John. Who then is so wise, and to such an extent capable, that he could learn the whole of Jesus from the four evangelists, and be able to perceive and understand each thing privately, and to see all his sojournings, and discourses, and works according to each place? And indeed, according to the proposed passage, we logically suppose that on the sixth day the Savior, when that affair of the wedding in Cana of Galilee had taken place, descended to Capharnaum, which is interpreted as "field of consolation," with his mother, and brothers, and disciples. For it was necessary for the Savior, after that feast celebrated with wine, to come to the field of consolation with his mother and his disciples, to console the disciples and that soul ^C which had conceived from the Holy Spirit, and those who received benefit there—to console them, I say, from the fruits that would be in the field of fullness.

7. However, it is to be inquired why his brothers are not called; but neither were they there, for it is not said: "But into Capharnaum they descend with him, and his mother, and the disciples." Furthermore, it must be examined why now they do not enter into Capharnaum, nor ascend into it, but descend. See then if in this place the brothers are to be understood as those powers which descended with him—which were not called to the wedding for the reasons we have mentioned, but later, in more humble situations, are they who are considered disciples of Christ and other kinds of persons aided; because, if his mother is called, there are certain ones making progress and bearing fruit, to whom the Lord himself descends with the ministers of the Word and the disciples, assisting such ones, with his mother also standing by him. Indeed, those who are called Capharnaum ^D seem not to receive a longer stay of Jesus and of those who had descended with him among them; whence they do indeed remain among them, but not for many days. For the field of lower consolation does not grasp the illumination concerning many dogmas, since it is capable of things of meager substance.

^B Furthermore, that we may see the difference between those who receive Jesus more or less, we must add to those words, "There they remained not many days," that which is said by the Lord risen from the dead in Matthew, when the disciples were sent to teach all nations, being thus: "Lo, I am with you all the days, even to the consummation of the age." For to those who are capable, while still dwelling here, of knowing all things that human nature can know, it is said demonstratively: "I am with you." And concerning all the arising and illumination which springs up for those who contemplate, and which sets more days before the eyes of the most blessed, [it is said]: "All the days, even to the consummation of the age." But concerning those in Capharnum, to whom, as being of a lower state, not only Jesus descends, but also his mother, and his brothers, and his disciples, it is said: "There they remained not many days."

8. ^C It is credible, however, that some may ask whether, after all the days of this age, he who said, "Lo, I am with you," will no longer be with those who have received him "even to the consummation of the age," for the particle "even to" denotes a kind of circumscription of time. Therefore, it must also be said to this point that "I am with you" is not the same as "I am in you." Perhaps, then, we might more properly say that the Savior is not *in* the disciples, but *with* them, as far as they have not yet reached with their mind the consummation of the age. But when they have contemplated the consummation of the world that has been crucified to them, as far as their preparation goes, then Jesus will no longer be *with* them, but will have come to be *in* them; and they will say: "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me," and: "Do you seek proof of Christ speaking in me?"

We say these things while maintaining in a private way that exposition which teaches that "all the days, even to the consummation of the age," is said according to those things which human nature can grasp while it still exists in this world. For we can also, while maintaining that interpretation, note the word "I," so that he who is "even to the consummation" with those who are sent to teach all nations ^D may be he who emptied himself, having taken the form of a servant; as if, however, someone else, being in that state which was before he emptied himself, should be with them after the consummation of the age, "until" his enemies are placed by the Father "as a footstool for his feet," and after these things, "when he shall have delivered up" the kingdom to God and the Father, the Father saying...

to them: "Behold, I am with you always." ^A Whether, however, he says it for all days up to this time, or simply for all days, or not for all, but for every day, he who wishes may consider. For now the things proposed do not permit us to digress so far from our discourse.

9. ^B Indeed, Heracleon himself, explaining: "Afterward he goes down to Capharnaum," says that the beginning of another dispensation is therein declared, the word "goes down" not being used idly; and he says that Capharnaum signifies these extremities of the world, these material things, to which he descended. And because the place was not suitable, he says, it is not recorded that he did or said anything in that city. Therefore, if it had been written in the other evangelists that our Lord neither did nor said anything in Capharnaum, perhaps we would have hesitated to accept his interpretation. But now Matthew says that our Lord, having left Nazareth, set out and dwelt in the maritime city of Capharnaum, and from that time made the beginning of his preaching, saying: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." ^C Mark, however, after the devil had tempted the Lord, and after John had been delivered into prison, announces to us that the Lord came into Galilee preaching the Gospel of God; and after the election of the four fishermen to the function of the apostolic office, they enter into Capharnaum, and immediately on the sabbaths he taught in the synagogue, and they were astonished at his doctrine. Moreover, he also records an action of his that took place in Capharnaum; for immediately he says: "There was in their synagogue a man possessed by an unclean spirit, and he cried out, saying: Ah, what have we to do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Son of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying: Hold thy peace, and go out of the man. And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and had cried out with a loud voice, he went out of him. And all were amazed." And Simon's mother-in-law is delivered from a fever in Capharnaum. ^D In addition to this, Mark says that in the evening, all those who were ill and those possessed by demons were cured in Capharnaum. And Luke also reports similar things to Mark concerning Capharnaum, saying: "And he came to Capharnaum, a city of Galilee, and there he was teaching them on the sabbaths. And they were astonished at his doctrine, because his word was with power. And in the synagogue there was a man having a spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice: Ah, what have we to do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying: Hold thy peace, and go out of him. And when the demon had cast him into the midst, he went out of him, and hurt him nothing." And afterward he narrates how the Lord, rising from the synagogue, entered into the house of Si-

Simon, and rebuking the fever in his mother-in-law, delivered her from the disease. After she was healed, "At sunset," he says, "all who had any ^A sick with various diseases, brought them to him; and he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them. And demons also came out of many, crying out and saying, You are the Son of God. And he, rebuking them, would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ." We have set forth all these things regarding what was said and done by the Savior in Capharnaum, to refute the interpretation of Heracleon, who says: "For this reason it is said that he neither did nor spoke any thing in it." Either he himself must grant two meanings to Capharnaum and set them forth and convince us what they are, or, being unable to do this, he should cease saying that the Savior had come to any place in vain. But we, God granting, when we have come to this text, will endeavor ^B to show that his arrival was not in vain, even if from the reading it almost appears that he had gone to some places and done nothing.

10. Furthermore, Matthew says that when the Lord had entered into Capharnaum, the centurion came to him, saying: "My servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented," and after other things said to the Lord concerning him, had heard: "Go, and as you have believed, so let it be done to you"; and he also set forth the things concerning Peter's mother-in-law in harmony with the other two. I consider it to be ambitious, and fitting for one who is studious in Christ, to gather from the four Gospels all things that have been recorded concerning Capharnaum, and the words and works of the Lord in it, and how often ^C he has visited it, and how sometimes he is said to have gone down to it, and at other times to have entered it, and from where; for these things, being brought together, will not allow us to fall into error concerning the understanding of Capharnaum. Moreover, even if they that are sick are cured there, and other miracles are performed there, nevertheless, the Lord begins to preach there, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand," which seems to be a sign, as we demonstrated at the beginning, of some place of a lower order, which perhaps becomes a place of consolation through Jesus giving it comfort from those things which he taught and did there in the place which is a field of consolation; for we know also that names of places happen to be ^D synonymous with the events surrounding Jesus; just as Gergesa, where the citizens of those places asked him to [depart] from their borders.

is interpreted as the "dwelling of those who cast out." ^B Furthermore, regarding Capharnaum, we have observed that not only did the Lord begin to preach there, "The kingdom of the heavens is at hand," but, as the three evangelists show, he performed his first mighty works there. None of the three, however, in writing of those marvelous things that first came to pass in Capharnaum, followed the disciple John, who, in noting the first miracle, says: "This beginning of signs Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee." For that which happened in Capharnaum was not the beginning of signs, because while the joy of the Son of God is indeed the primary sign, it is representative of the things that happen to men. It does not so much demonstrate the beauty of the Word through the healing of disease—while he heals the sick—as it does through the joyous sober drink it provides to those who, by virtue of their health, are able to participate in the feast.

11. ^B Considering the diligence of the most wise John, I asked myself what he meant by adding "of the Jews." For what other nation has a solemnity of the Passover? Therefore, it would have sufficed to say: "And the Passover was near." But beware, lest perhaps the Passover of the Jews is mentioned to distinguish it from the divine Passover: since one is the human Passover—namely, that of those who do not celebrate it according to the will of Scripture—while the other is the divine Passover, the true one, performed in spirit and in truth by those who worship God in spirit and in truth. Let us hear, then, the words of the Lord ordaining the Passover, when it was first named in Scripture: "And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying: ^C This month shall be to you the beginning of months; it shall be the first for you in the months of the year. Speak to the whole assembly of the children of Israel, saying: On the tenth of this month let every man take a sheep according to the families of their houses." And a little later, in passages where the Passover was not yet called by name, he adds: "And thus you shall eat it: your loins shall be girt, and your shoes upon your feet, and your staves in your hands, and you shall eat it with haste: it is the Passover of the Lord." For he does not say: "It is your Passover." And a little later, he names the solemnity a second time in this way: "And it shall be, if your sons say to you: What is this worship? and you shall say to them: It is the victim of the Passover of the Lord, as he protected the houses of the children of Israel." And again, a little later: ^D "And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: This is the law of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat of it." And again, a little later: "But if any proselyte shall come to you, and perform the Passover of the Lord, let him be circumcised..."

^A all his males." But it must be observed that in the legislation it is nowhere said "your Passover," but once in those places we have proposed it is said without any addition, and three times ^B "the Passover of the Lord." And in order to accept that this is so regarding the difference between the Passover of the Lord and the Passover of the Jews, let us see what is written in Isaiah in this manner: "Your new moons, and your sabbaths, and the great day I do not tolerate; your fasting, and idleness, and your new moons, and your festivals my soul hates." For the Lord does not say that the things performed by those who sin are His own, things which are hated by His soul—if such a thing exists ^C—neither the new moons, nor the sabbaths, nor the great day, nor the fast, nor the festivals. However, in the legislation of Exodus concerning the sabbath, these things are said: "And Moses said to them: This is the word which the Lord spoke: The sabbaths are a holy rest to the Lord." And after a few words: "And Moses said: Eat, for today is the sabbath to the Lord." And in Numbers, before these sacrifices which are offered on individual festivals, as if each festival day were according to the law of the *endelechismus* [that is, the daily offering], these things are written: "And the Lord spoke to Moses: Announce to the sons of Israel, and you shall say to them, saying: My gifts, my offerings, my fruits you shall take care to offer to me at my festivals. And you shall say to them: These are the fruits which you shall offer to the Lord." For He called them His own festivals, and not those of the ones being legislated for, the ones set forth in the Scripture, and His gifts, and His offerings. ^D And something similar to these is also recorded concerning the people in Exodus, who is said to be God's own when he does not sin; but when He rejects him at the making of the calf, He called him the people of Moses: "For to Pharaoh, He says, you shall say: Thus says the Lord: Send away my people, that they may serve me in the desert. But if you do not wish to send away my people, behold I send upon you, and upon your servants, and upon your people, and upon your houses the dog-fly, and the houses of the Egyptians shall be filled with the dog-fly, and upon the land upon which they are, upon it; and I will make wonderful on that day the land of Gesem, upon which my people are, upon it, upon which there is no dog-fly, that you may know that I am the Lord, the Lord of all the earth. And I will give a distinction between my people. But to Moses the Lord spoke saying: Go, descend quickly, for your people, whom you led out of the land of Egypt, have sinned." Just as, therefore, the people, when not sinning, are God's, but when sinning are no longer said to be His, so also the festivals, when they are hated by the soul of the Lord, are the festivals of those who sin.

^A Since when they are ordained by the Lord, they are proclaimed to be the Lord’s. And one of the festivals is the Pascha, which in the proposed Scripture of the Gospel is said not to be the Lord’s, but the Jews’. And elsewhere he says, “These, he says, are the festivals of the Lord, which you shall call holy convocations.” From the voice of the Lord, therefore, it is not possible to gainsay the things we have set forth. But someone might plausibly inquire, on the basis of what the Apostle wrote to the Corinthians: “For indeed our Pascha was sacrificed for us—Christ;” for he does not say, “Christ was sacrificed as the Lord’s Pascha.” And to this it must be said, either that the Apostle spoke more simply, saying “our Pascha,” which was sacrificed for us, or that every festival that is truly the Lord’s—of which the Pascha is one—will be celebrated not in this age, nor upon the earth, but in the future [age] and in the heavens, when the kingdom of the heavens is present. And indeed concerning those festivals, one of the twelve prophets says: “What will you do in the days of the solemn assembly and in the days of the festival of the Lord?” And Paul in the [Epistle] to the Hebrews: “But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, [and to] a solemn assembly, and to the Church of the firstborn who are written in the heavens.” And in the [Epistle] to the Colossians: ^B “Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or in regard to a festival, or a new moon, or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come.”

12. Furthermore, as to how the festivals, the shadow of which was among the carnal Jews, are such that we are to receive the perfection of the Son of God in the supercelestial realms—having been instructed first under that true law in the manner of children, by guardians and stewards, until that fullness of time which is there shall arrive—it is the task of that wisdom which was hidden in a mystery to manifest and contemplate what things are ordained by the law concerning foods, which are symbols of those things there that are to nourish and strengthen our soul. But for someone rashly to imagine the sea of so many meanings, and wishing to preserve how the worship according to place is a pattern and shadow of the supercelestial things, and wishing to understand the sacrifices and the lamb, [to think he can] advance and surpass the Apostle, who indeed desired to raise our mind from the earthly dogmas of the law, but did not altogether clearly set forth how these things are to come to pass. ^C But if festivals also, of which the Pascha is one, are referred to the future age, it must be considered even more [closely] how even now our Pascha, Christ, has been sacrificed, and will be sacrificed hereafter.

13. Moreover, a few things must be added by us to this perplexity of our dogmas, which require a special ^D treatise.

^A along with the whole of the mystical understanding of the law, and especially that which concerns the feasts, and even more specifically concerning the Passover. For the Passover of the Jews is a sheep that is sacrificed, taken by each person according to the houses of their families, and performed by myriads of lambs and kids being slaughtered, in greater number according to the proportion of the number of the houses of the people; but our Passover, Christ, was sacrificed for us. And again, for them there is the unleavened bread, with every leaven being removed from their houses; but we keep the feast not with old leaven, nor with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. If, however, there is some third thing besides the two mentioned, namely a Passover of the Lord and a feast of unleavened bread, it must be examined more accurately, because those things serve as a pattern and shadow of heavenly things, and not only food, and drink, and new moons, and Sabbaths, but also the feasts are a shadow of things to come. Since ^B the Apostle says, "Christ our Passover has been sacrificed," one might raise these difficulties against him: if the sheep among the Jews is a type of Christ's sacrifice, it should have been that one, and not many, sheep were sacrificed, just as Christ is one; or, if many sheep were sacrificed, then it would follow that many Christs were sacrificed, in accordance with the type. And let us, so that we may pass over this for now, inquire how the sheep which is sacrificed contains an image of Christ, when the one is sacrificed by those who keep the law, but Christ is put to death by those who transgress it. And we must also inquire how that which is said about Christ is to be interpreted: "They shall eat the flesh on this night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat unleavened bread with bitter herbs"; and that which says, "You shall not eat of them raw, nor boiled in water, but only roasted with fire; the head with the feet and the inner parts [you shall eat], and you shall not leave of them until morning, and you shall not break a bone of them; and what is left of them until morning, you shall burn." ^C It seems that John, in the Gospel, has used the saying, "You shall not break a bone of it," as referring to the economy concerning the Savior, and to the time when it is commanded in the law that those eating the sheep should not break its bone. He speaks as follows: "The soldiers came, therefore, and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus, as they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs, but one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear. And immediately there came out blood and water. And he who has seen has borne witness, and his testimony is true. And he knows that he speaks the truth, so that you also may believe. For these things happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled, 'You shall not break a bone of him.'" And there are ten thousand other things ^D besides these which are to be sought after regarding the expression of the Apostle, and regarding the

^A Pasch and the Azymes, which are to be examined, as we have previously stated, in a more extensive treatise. But now, having brought these things forward in short, for the sake of the passage before us, we shall endeavor to solve in few words the points that appear dubious, remembering also this word: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world," since even in the Pasch it says: "You shall take of the lambs and of the kids." It will seem that the Evangelist also, agreeing with Paul, is constrained by such difficulties as those we have examined.

It must be said, however, that if "the Word became flesh," and the Lord says: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day; for my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him"—perhaps this is the flesh of the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world; and this is the blood which it is necessary to place upon the two doorposts and upon the lintel in those houses in which we eat the Pasch; and it is necessary to eat of the flesh of this Lamb in the time of the world, which is night. And the flesh is to be eaten roasted with fire, together with bread from azymes; for the Word of God is not only flesh. ^B He says, therefore: "I am the bread of life"; and: "This is the bread which comes down from heaven, so that one may eat from it and not die. I am the living bread which has come down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever."

We must not, however, be ignorant that in a wider sense every food is called bread, just as it is written concerning Moses in Deuteronomy: "Forty days he did not eat bread, and he did not drink water," which means he partook of neither dry nor liquid food. This I have kept in mind because it is also said in the Gospel according to John: "And the bread which I will give, my flesh is for the life of the world." Or rather, because of the repentances for our sins, by which we sorrow with a godly sorrow, working for us a repentance unto salvation that is not to be repented of, we eat the flesh of the Lamb and the azymes with bitter herbs; or because we seek, amidst our torments, to be nourished by the contemplations of the truth that are found. ^C Therefore, the flesh of the Lamb is not to be eaten raw, as the servants of the letter do, in the manner of irrational animals that have been brutalized, in contrast to those who are truly rational, desiring through their understanding to perceive spiritual things, while sharing in the Word and not in the nature of brutalized beasts. ^D Great effort should be made by him who partakes, so that he may roast the material of the Scripture, and not partake of it in a weak, watery, and lax manner.

the things written, which those do who have itching ears, and turning themselves away from the truth, betake themselves to the relaxed and more watery ways of life which befit them. But we, with a fervent spirit and the burning words given by God, such as Jeremiah had received from Him who said to him: ^A “Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth as fire,” let us roast the meat of the lamb, so that those who partake of them may say, with Christ speaking in us, that “Our heart was burning within us by the way, while He opened to us the Scriptures.” But if, in order to seek such things, it is necessary to roast with fire the meat of the lamb, one must set forth the confession of the suffering which Jeremiah experienced at the words of God, saying: “And it became as fire burning, flaming in my bones, and I am exhausted on every side, and I cannot endure.” ^B One must begin the eating from the head, that is, from the highest and foundational dogmas concerning heavenly things; and one must end at the feet, the ultimate teachings which inquire into the final nature of existing things—namely, the more material ones, or the subterranean ones, or the evil spirits and impure demons. For the understanding concerning them, being different from those sublime matters and stored away in the mysteries of Scripture, can tropologically be called the feet of the lamb. And one must not abstain from the intestines, the internal and hidden parts. We must approach the whole of Scripture as one body, and we must not crush nor ^C divide the most steady and firm bonds of its entire composition’s harmony, which is what those have done who, as much as in them lies, tear apart the unity of the Spirit existing in all the Scriptures. However, let this prophecy from the lamb spoken of before feed us only during the night of the darkness in this life; for just as when the day of the things after this life dawns, we shall have no food remaining—we to whom this food is useful only for the present time. For when the night has passed, and the day which comes after it has arrived, we shall by no means eat bread leavened ^D by the older and lower things, which will be useful to us until the manna is given after the unleavened bread—that angelic and not human food. Therefore, let the sheep be sacrificed by each of us in every house of our kindred; and it may be that one person is a transgressor of the law, not sacrificing the sheep, while another keeps the whole commandment, sacrificing and roasting and not breaking any bone of it. And thus, in brief, in accordance with the apostolic interpretation and the lamb in the Gospel, may the sacrificed Passover, Christ, be offered. For one must not think that the historical things are types of historical things, and the bodily of bodily, but the bodily of spiritual things, and the historical of intelligible things.

Our reasoning does not need to arrive ^A at the third Pascha, which is to be performed in the crowd and multitude of innumerable angels, in the most perfect and blessed departure; for we have already discussed these things more broadly and copiously than the reading requires.

14. But it must not be overlooked how the Pascha of the Jews was near, when the Lord was with his mother, and his brothers, and his disciples in Capharnaum. Now, in the Gospel according to Matthew, when he had been dismissed by the devil, and the angels had come and ministered to him, and he had heard that John had been delivered up, he withdrew into Galilee, and leaving Nazara, he went and dwelt in Capharnaum. Then, when he had begun his preaching, and had chosen the four fishermen as apostles, and had taught in the synagogues of all Galilee, and had healed those who were brought to him, he went up into the mountain, and ^B spoke the beatitudes and the things that are next to these. But when he had finished that teaching, and had come down from the mountain, he entered Capharnaum a second time, and from there, having embarked in a boat, he crossed over to the region of the Gerasenes; and having been asked to depart from their borders, he embarked in a boat, crossed over, and came to his own city, where, having performed some healings, he went around all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues. And many other things happen after this, before Matthew notes the time of Pascha. Moreover, among the other evangelists, after the Lord had stayed in Capharnaum, it is not found that "Pascha was near" is said; but it will be possible for one who has considered what we said before about Capharnaum to understand the intention of the men. That sojourn, when the Pascha of the Jews was approaching, was ^C made a little better for this very reason, and more excellent, especially since in the Pascha of the Jews there are found in the temple those selling oxen, and sheep, and pigeons; because of whom it is added even more that it is not the Lord's, but the Jews' Pascha. For just as the house of the Father became a house of merchandise among those who did not sanctify it, so also the Pascha of the Lord became a human and Jewish Pascha among those who chose it in a more abject and bodily way. It will be more convenient at other times to see the things that pertain to the time of Pascha, which happens around the vernal equinox, and whatever else the problem under discussion demands to be set forth. Indeed, Heracleon says: "This is the great feast; for it was a type of the passion of the Savior, ^D when not only was the lamb being killed, but it also provided rest when eaten; and being sacrificed it indeed signified the passion of the Savior in the world, but when eaten it signified the rest that will be in the nuptials." We have cited his words, so that when we have seen this man in such great...

^A affairs, we might not regard him lightly—as if he were one who moves about without any preparation, contemptuously and without firmness—but rather that we may despise him all the more.

15. "And Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those who were selling oxen, and doves, and the money-changers sitting. And having made a scourge of cords, he cast out the sheep and the oxen from the temple, and poured out the money of the money-changers, and overturned the ^B tables; and to those who were selling the doves he said: Take these things away from here, and do not make my Father's house a house of merchandise. Then his disciples remembered that it is written: The zeal of your house will consume me." One must note that John records this work of Jesus, concerning those found by him in the temple selling oxen, sheep, and doves, as a second work; whereas the others, at nearly the end of the narrative, in the dispensation that occurred at the time of the passion, relate something similar. And Matthew says: "And when he had entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred, saying: Who is this? But the crowds said: This is Jesus the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee. And Jesus entered the temple and cast out all those selling and buying in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money-changers ^C and the seats of those selling doves. And he says to them: It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you make it a den of robbers." And Mark: "And they come to Jerusalem; and having entered the temple, he began to cast out those selling and buying in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry a vessel through the temple; and he taught and said to them, Is it not written that my house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations? But you have made it a den of robbers." And Luke: "And as he drew near, seeing the city, he wept over it, saying: If you had known, even you, in this day, the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes, because days will come upon you, and they will surround you and encompass you on every side, and level you to the ground, and your children ^D within you, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation. And having entered the temple, he began to cast out those who were selling, saying to them: It is written: And my house shall be a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of robbers." Furthermore, it is also to be noted that what is related by the three [evangelists] concerning the Lord's ascent to Jerusalem, during which he did these things in the temple, John has recorded as having happened after many things, after another of his visits to Jerusalem, different from the present one. These must be considered in this manner: and first, those things which are handed down by Matthew: "And when they had drawn near to Jerusalem, and had come to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples,

saying to them: Go into the village that is opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tied and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me; and if anyone says anything to you, you shall say that the Lord has need of them; and immediately he will send them." And this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: "Tell the daughter of Zion: Behold, your king comes to you, meek, and sitting upon an ass and a foal of an ass, the beast of burden." And the disciples went and did as Jesus had commanded them, and brought the ass ^A and the colt, and laid their garments upon them, and he sat upon them. And a very great crowd spread their garments in the way; and the crowds that went before him, and that followed, cried out, saying: "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!" Next follow the words: "And when he had entered into Jerusalem, the whole city was moved," which we have cited in the preceding part.

Now, let us consider the words of Mark: "And when they draw near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sends two of his disciples, and says to them: Go into the village that is opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied, on which no man has yet sat; untie it, and bring it. And if anyone says to you: Why are you doing this? say that the Lord has need of it, and immediately he will send it here." And they went, and found the ^B colt tied at the door outside in the street, and they untie it. And some of those who were standing there said to them: "What are you doing, untying the colt?" And they said to them even as Jesus had said, and they permitted them; and they bring the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments upon it. And others, cutting branches from the trees, spread them in the way. And those who were going before, and those who followed, cried out, saying: "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is he who comes, the kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!" And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple, and when he had looked upon all things, and the hour was now evening, he went out to Bethany with the twelve; and on the next day, when they had left Bethany, he hungered. ^C Then, after the mystery of the withered fig tree, "they come to Jerusalem. And having entered the temple, he began to cast out those who were selling," and the things which follow are narrated by Luke in this manner: "And it came to pass, as he drew near to Bethphage and Bethany, near the mount which is called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying: Go into the village opposite, in which as you enter ^D you will find a colt tied, on which no man has ever sat; untie it, and bring it; and if anyone asks you: Why are you untying it? thus shall you say: Because the Lord has need of it. And the disciples went, and found as he had said to them."

^A And as they were untying the foal, its masters said to them: Why are you untying the foal? But they said: Because the Lord has need of it. And they brought it to Jesus; and having cast their garments upon the foal, they set Jesus upon it. And as he went, they were spreading their garments on the road. And when he was already drawing near to the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began, rejoicing, to praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they had seen, saying: Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord; peace in heaven, and glory in the highest! And some of the Pharisees from the crowd said to him: Teacher, rebuke your disciples. And he answering said: I tell you that, if these should keep silent, the stones would cry out. And as he drew near, seeing the city, he wept over it, and the things that follow, which we have set forth. Yet John, after very many things of his, where he says: “And Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep,” and ^B recounting another ascent of the Lord to Jerusalem, says these things after the supper which was in Bethany six days before the Passover, in which Martha was serving and Lazarus lay at table: “On the morrow a great crowd, which had come to the feast, hearing that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took branches of palm trees, and went out to meet him, and were crying: Hosanna, blessed in the name of the Lord is the King of Israel! And Jesus, having found a young donkey, sat upon it, as it is written: Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold your King comes, sitting on the foal of an ass.” ^C But I think that I have necessarily done this, even though I have cited very many words of the evangelists, in order to show the dissonance that is in the text: because three of them, in one and the same arrival of the Lord to Jerusalem, say the things which many deem to be the same as those which John also has written; but John reports these things which we have set forth as having taken place in two ascents of the Lord to Jerusalem, and in different and distant actions, recounting also that the Lord in the meantime had gone to different places. And so it is my judgment that it can in no way be shown that the apparent dissonance is consistent to those who admit nothing in these matters beyond the history. But if anyone thinks that we have not ^D expounded it rightly, let him write in opposition to this our understanding with prudence.

16. Moreover, those who move us into the harmony concerning these things, seeking the one who gives to everyone who asks, and striving to seek intently, and knocking that the hidden things of Scripture may be opened to us by the keys of knowledge, we shall set forth according to the strength supplied to us what moves us to these considerations.

^A And first let us consider the text of John, beginning with the words: "And Jesus went up to Jerusalem." Jerusalem, therefore, as the Lord himself teaches in the Gospel according to Matthew, is "the city of the great king," not founded in a valley or in some low place, but built on a high mountain, and "mountains [are] round about it, the participation of it in the same"; and, "thither went up the tribes of the Lord, a testimony unto Israel." llbracketPs. CXXI, 5; CXXII, 4 This city is also called Jerusalem, to which no one of those who remain on earth ascends, nor does he enter; but any soul which has a natural height and sharpness of mind for perceiving and discerning intelligible things is a citizen of this city. ^B It is also possible for a Jerusalemite to be in sin; for it is possible even for those gifted with the best nature to sin, if they do not return more quickly after the sin, losing that aptitude and becoming [citizens] of one of those cities that are foreign to Judea, not only as strangers, but also as those who must give their names to them. Jesus goes up to Jerusalem after having brought aid to those in Cana of Galilee, and having subsequently gone down to Capharnaum, intending to do at Jerusalem that which is written. He found, therefore, in the temple—which is also said to be the house of the Savior's Father, that is, in the Church or the proclamation of the ecclesiastical and sound word—some who were making the house of the Father a house of merchandise. And Jesus always finds some in the temple. For when is it that in that which is called the Church, which is ^C the house of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth, there are not some money-changers sitting, who have need of blows from the whip of cords made by Jesus, and money-changers who have need that their coins be poured out and their tables overturned? When, moreover, are there not those who sell, in the manner of merchants, oxen which they ought to have kept for the plow, so that, having laid their hands upon it and not turning back, they might be fit for the kingdom of God? And when are there not those who prefer the mammon of unrighteousness to the sheep which provide them with the material for adorning themselves? There are always many, too, who despise sincerity and private purity for all bitterness and bile, even for the sake of wretched gain, betraying the diligence of those who are tropically called doves. When, therefore, the Savior finds in the temple—the house of the Father ^D—those selling oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the money-changers sitting, he drives them out, using the whip of cords made by himself, along with the marketable sheep and their oxen, and pouring out their gathered coins as things unworthy to be held together, and showing their uselessness. He also overturns the tables which were in the minds of the covetous, saying to those who were selling the doves: "Take these things hence," so that they may no longer be sold in the temple of God. I truly believe that Jesus himself performed signs, by

^A what he said, more deeply, in order that we might understand that it was signified by these things that the worship carried out by priests in that temple, according to sensible sacrifices, was no longer to be performed in the future, nor could the law be kept any longer consistently, at least in the way the carnal Jews wanted. For it was not the case that, once Jesus drove out the oxen and the sheep and ordered the doves to be taken away from there, oxen and sheep and doves were going to be sacrificed for a long time according to the custom of the Jews. For it is possible that the coins, which are figures of carnal currencies and do not have the forms and impressions of God, were to be poured out, since the constitution of the law, which seemed to be worthy of veneration, because of the letter that kills ^B, was to be dissolved and poured away; and upon the arrival of Jesus, and his use of whips against the people, the priesthood was to be transferred to those from among the nations who had believed in God through Christ; from whom also the kingdom of God was to be taken away and given to a nation producing its fruits. Further, it is also possible that the temple of God is naturally the soul that obeys reason; existing as superior to the body on account of the reason inborn in it, to which Jesus ascends from Capharnaum, situated somewhere below, namely in humbler things: in which, before it is instructed and disciplined by Jesus, are found the earthly, and the foolish and bestial impulses, and those things which we consider good, when they are not, which are expelled by Jesus, by means of a discourse woven from demonstrative and vituperative dogmas, so that the house of his Father may no longer be a house of trade, but may receive the worship of God, which is performed according to celestial and spiritual laws, ^C for its own salvation and that of many others. The symbol of earthly things is the ox, for it is a farmer; of foolish and bestial things, the sheep, since this animal is more servile than many of the irrational ones; of light and unstable thoughts, the dove; and of those things which we consider good, the coins. If anyone is offended by this exposition, because the animals taken into Scripture are pure, it must be said that Scripture would be of dubious credibility according to the historical account, if it reported that a herd of other animals, besides the pure ones, had entered into the temple of God, and for the trade of others besides those being sacrificed. Wherefore, in my judgment, the evangelist utilized that event which was brought about by the merchants who had arrived during the times of the Jewish festivals and had brought these animals into the outer court of the temple. Moreover, whoever ^D is concerned with a more accurate inquiry will consider whether it was in accordance with the dignity of his present life that Jesus, who was thought to be the son of a carpenter, should dare to do such a thing; namely, to drive out the multitude of merchants who had ascended for the feast day.

^A And to sell to so great a multitude of people the sheep intended for sacrifice for the houses of their families, existing in the number of many myriads, and oxen to the wealthier [people], and such things as those who had vowed were to present, and doves, which many would buy as if to feast at a great festival; and [to consider] whether it was not the turn of the money-changers to accuse Jesus of wrongdoing because their own money was poured out and their tables overturned. But who, having been struck by the whip made of cords by one accounted vile among them, and driven away, would not have laid hold of him and cried out, avenging himself with all his might, especially when he had so great a multitude of those who believed that the same insult was being done to them, favoring him against Jesus? ^B Furthermore, let us consider whether the Son of God taking the cords and weaving for himself a whip for the purpose of expelling them from the temple does not represent, beyond boldness and temerity, something also disorderly. But indeed, one refuge of defense against these things remains for one who wishes also to preserve the history: a certain more divine power of Jesus, who was able, when he willed, to extinguish the inflamed spirit of his enemies, and to overcome many thousands of men by divine grace, and to scatter the thoughts of those who were rioting; for "The Lord scatters the counsels of the nations, and sets at nought the thoughts of the peoples; but the counsel of the Lord endures forever." ^C So that the history of the present passage, if indeed these things occurred, shows that by none of the things wrought by him, however wondrously, and inviting those who saw them to faith through his divinity, was the power that was put into effect less than what is [set down] in the history, if indeed it occurred at all. And it is possible to declare it greater than what occurred regarding the water changed into wine in Cana of Galilee; for there, the matter changed was inanimate, whereas in this place, [he] brought into subjection the governing faculties of so many myriads of souls. It must be noted, however, that while his mother is said to be at the wedding, Jesus and his disciples are said to have been invited. Yet no one but Jesus is recorded to have gone down to Capharnaum. ^D The disciples, however, appear later to have been present, since they remembered it was written: "Zeal for your house will consume me." And perhaps in each of the disciples Jesus was ascending to Jerusalem, which is why it is not said: "Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and his disciples," just as, "He went down to Capharnaum, himself and his mother, and his brothers, and his disciples."

17. Now the kindred matters to this location (namely, the casting out of the temple of those making it a house of trade) are to be considered as they are set forth among the others. And first, indeed, those things in Matthew, who says that once the Lord had entered into Jerusalem, the whole city was shaken...

^A *“Quis est hic?”* (Who is this?) And before these things, he narrates what concerns the ass and the colt, having been taken by the command of the Lord, by two disciples sent by Him from Bethphage to the village opposite it, where they were found; where also the ass, previously bound, is unloosed by the two disciples, they having been commanded, if anyone should say anything to them, to reply as follows: ^B “The Lord has need of them, and straightway He will send them.” He announces that the prophecy is fulfilled through these things having come to pass, which says:

“Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of a beast of burden,”

^A “Tell the daughter of Sion,” curtailing the prophetic word and passing over the “just, and saving himself” and saying, as it lies, “meek, and riding,” instead of “on a yoke-beast and a new foal,” he wrote, “on an ass and a foal, son of a yoke-beast.” But the Jews also, comparing the sequence of the prophecy with the accounts recorded concerning Jesus, ^B harass us not insignificantly, demanding how Jesus destroyed the chariots from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem, and destroyed the warlike bow, and did the things that follow. And these things are concerning the prophecy; but if they complain about the length of the road, finding nothing worthy of the dispensation of the Son of God in the discourse concerning the ass and the foal, in the first place, those who utilize the fifteen stadia, which is a short distance, will not bring forward a very reasonable defense of the road; and again, let them tell us how He needs two beasts for so short a road, for it says, “He sat upon them.” Furthermore, as to that: “If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord has need of them, and he will immediately send them,” I do not think it worthy ^C of the greatness of the divinity of the Son, that we should say that such a nature must confess itself to have need of an ass being loosed from its bonds and a foal coming with it; for everything for which the Son of God has need must be great and worthy of his goodness. Moreover, the vast crowd spreading their own garments on the way (while Jesus endured these things and did not rebuke them, as is evident from what is narrated by others, namely: “If these should be silent, the stones will cry out”), I do not know if they do not display a certain foolishness on the part of one who is pleased by such things, if nothing else is signified by them. And for branches cut from trees to be spread in the way as barriers for the asses passing through might seem ^D to be an injury to the one being crowded rather than a thoughtful reception. And as for the things which we raised as difficulties concerning those cast out of the temple by him, these and even greater things must be said here. For in the Gospel according to John he casts out those buying, and [alt-version omitted] but Matthew says that he cast out all who were selling and buying in the temple. And by far, as is likely, the number of those buying was greater than those selling. And let us consider whether it was not above the dignity of Jesus, who was thought to be the son of the carpenter, to cast out all who were selling and buying in the temple, unless perhaps, as we said there, he subdued all by a more divine power, [as the things] are harsher than the divine power of the Son of God.

For John says to them that it was spoken by Jesus: ^A “Make not the house of my Father a house of merchandise”; but the rest are reproved for having made the house of prayer a den of robbers, not because the house of the Father [is able] to be a den of robbers, but because it is carried so far by those who sin that it becomes a house of merchandise. And not only is the house of prayer, being absolutely the house of the Father, neglected and does it receive robbers, but by not becoming their house, it becomes a den, a thing not caused by architectural and rational skill.

18. Now, one may indeed see how these things stand, ^B by the true mind given to those who say: “But we have the mind of Christ, that we may see the things that have been freely given to us by God,” being persuaded that it is greater than ourselves. For our ruling faculty is not unstained, nor are our eyes such as the eyes of the beautiful spouse of Christ ought to be, ^C concerning whom the bridegroom says: “Your eyes are doves,” perhaps hinting at the perceptive power of spiritual things, because the Holy Spirit also came as a dove upon the Lord, and [upon] the Lord in each one; yet nevertheless, even thus affected, we shall not shrink, handling the spoken words of life, trying to receive from them the power flowing into him who has touched them with faith. Jesus, therefore, is the Word of God, who enters into the soul called Jerusalem, riding upon the donkey freed from its bonds by the disciples. I speak of those simple in the letters of the Old Testament, who are clarified ^D by the two disciples who untie them: the one leading the written things to the healing of the soul and allegorizing them to itself, and the other teaching the future good and true things through those things placed in the shadow. He rides also upon the new colt, the New Testament; for in both it is possible to find the Word of truth that purifies us and drives out all the thoughts selling and buying within us. But he does not come alone to the soul that is Jerusalem, nor even with a few; for many things that lead to the Word of God that perfects us must come to be within us, and many other things [must be] those that follow him; all, however, praising and glorifying him, and laying down their own world and garment for him, so that his vehicles might not touch the earth, having him who descended from heaven resting upon them. And that those who carry him—the old and new reasons of the Scriptures—may be even more above the earth, branches must be cut from the trees, so that they may walk upon that which is reasonably expounded. But the crowds going before and following him can signify the angelic cooperations, some preparing the way for him in our souls, by which they are adorned; and others following his presence within us, concerning which we have spoken many times and now need no testimonies for this.

^A And perhaps it was not without reason that I compared to the ass [(76)] the circumstances that lead him [(77)] to the Word in the soul. For the beast is a beast of burden, and it is signified by the word that the burden and load is heavy, and especially so in the older [Testament], as is clear to one who gives attention to the things done among the Jews. But the colt is not a beast of burden in the same way as the ass. For even if every burden of the letter is heavy to those who are unable to contain the upward-tending and most light burden of the Spirit, yet the New Letter has less weight than the older. And I know some who interpreted the bound ass to be those of the circumcision who believe, being released from many bonds by those who have been genuinely instructed spiritually in the Word, while the colt to be the Gentiles, who, before they received the sermon of Jesus, were outside of every imposed yoke, and were restrained by no bridle, but were loose and lovers of pleasure. ^B And although these have not discoursed on the crowds going before [(78)] and following, it is not improbable to say that those going before are Moses and the prophets, and those following are the holy apostles; all of whom enter into which Jerusalem, as far as this discourse is concerned, must be sought, and the house [(79)] that contains moneychangers and those buying and selling who are driven out by the Son of God. And perhaps the Jerusalem above, to which the Lord will ascend, driving those from the circumcision and the Gentiles who believe—leading him, and following, that is, the prophets and apostles, or the angels who serve him [(80)] (for they can also be understood in this way from those going before and following him)—perhaps, I say, the Jerusalem above can now be called that which, before his ascent, contained those things which are called "the spiritual things of wickedness in the heavenly places," or the Canaanites, and Hittites, and Amorites, and the rest of the enemies of the people, and simply those who are alien, and where in some way the prophecy could be fulfilled which says: ^C “Your land is desolate, your cities are burned with fire; your country, strangers devour it before you.” For these are they who pollute the heavenly house of the Father, the holy Jerusalem, the house of prayer, and have made it a den of thieves—no others than themselves—having adulterated silver, and giving to those approaching obols and collyba, vile and contemptible coins. These are they who, while fighting with souls, take from them the more precious things and plunder the more excellent, in order to give those things which are of no value. Moreover, the disciples having gone, find the ass bound, and not having Jesus, because of the veil placed upon the Law, and they loose her; and the colt also is found with her, since both had perished before Jesus; I mean both those of the circumcision, and those from the Gentiles who believed later. But how do these, immediately again, [send]... ^D

^A after the Lord has sat upon the ass and ascended into Jerusalem, get sent back? It is not safe to speak of this, for it is a mystical matter, and tied to the transformation of the saints into the angels who are to be sent in the age to come, just as those ministering spirits are sent for the service of those who are to inherit eternal life. But if the ass and the colt are the Old and New Scriptures, upon which the Word of God rides, it will not be very difficult to show how they are sent, the Word having appeared in them, and [furthermore] that they do not remain after the Word has entered into Jerusalem among those who have cast out all the selling and buying thoughts.

I, for my part, think it is not in vain that this place where the ass and the colt were bound is called a village, and that, too, an unnamed one. For the whole earth is a village when compared to the entire system in heaven, and there is the ass bound, and the colt; and the village is sufficiently designated without the addition of any other name. But Matthew says that those sent to fetch the ass and the colt were sent from Bethphage, which was a priestly place, interpreted as "House of Jaws." And let these things be said by way of power regarding the passages in Matthew, for it will be more opportune to speak of the complete and, besides this, more accurate discourse when it is granted to us to speak on the Gospel according to Matthew.

Mark and Luke, however, say that the colt was found bound—upon which no man had yet sat—at the command of the Lord by the two disciples, who, having loosed it, led it to the Lord. ^B Mark adds that they found the colt tethered at the door, outside, at a crossroads. But who is "outside"? They who are from the nations, who were strangers to the Covenants and aliens to the promise of God, at the crossroads and not resting under a roof or a house, bound by their own sins, and being loosed by the aforementioned double knowledge of those familiar with Jesus.

The bonds of the bound colt, and the sins committed against the sound doctrine and reproved by Him who was the door of life, in respect to that door of life, were not within the door, but outside. For perhaps it is not possible for a bond of wickedness to exist within the door. ^C Certain persons, as Mark says, stood by the bound colt—these, I think, were they who had bound it, as Luke records—and the masters of the colt said to the disciples, "Why are you loosing the colt?" For those who subjected and bound the sinner are masters, lawless and illicit, who are not able to look back at the true Lord who draws the colt away from their bonds. Since, therefore, the disciples say, "The Lord has need of it," and the wicked masters are able to answer nothing, they lead the colt naked to Jesus, casting their own clothing upon it, so that the Lord, having sate upon the garments cast upon it by the disciples, might rest. The rest of the things from what is said in Matthew ^D and...

are not altogether obscure: namely, in what manner they ^A come to Jerusalem, and having entered the temple, he began to cast out those who were selling and buying in the temple; or, "as he drew near, seeing the city, he wept over it, and having entered the temple, he began to cast out the sellers." For in some cases, among those who have the temple within them, he casts out all the sellers and buyers in the temple; but in others, who are not yet fully obedient to the word of God, he only makes a beginning of casting out the sellers and buyers. There are third parties, besides these, in whom he began to cast out the sellers only, but not the buyers as well. But those in John are all together, with the sheep and the oxen, cast out by the scourge plaited from cords. Observe carefully, if possible, how the changes in the written accounts and the disagreements might be resolved by the anagogical mode, as each of the evangelists describes different operations of the Word in the different dispositions of souls, accomplishing not the same things, but things that are similar. And the seemingly disparate ascents of Jesus to Jerusalem, which the writer of the Gospel we have in our hands records differently from the other three—as we have set forth their words—can only be preserved in this way: that John, encountering similar events, took palm branches instead of the branches cut from trees, or the foliage from the fields, and those spread on the road, saying that the great multitude which had come to the feast had gone out to meet him, crying, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," and, ^C"King of Israel." But John says that the young ass upon which Christ sat was found by Jesus himself, presenting something greater to us regarding this ass, which is thus named in a tropical sense, as having received a greater benefit, "not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ." Nor did John himself set forth the prophecy word for word, but instead of it said: "Do not fear, daughter of Zion; behold, your King comes, sitting upon a foal of an ass," in place of that which is, "Ascending upon one under the yoke, and a young foal." But that which is, "Do not fear, daughter of Zion," is not said at all. However, since they have all expounded the prophetic discourse, let us see if it is not necessary for the daughter of Zion to rejoice exceedingly; and if the daughter of Jerusalem, who is superior to her, needs not only to rejoice exceedingly, but also to proclaim her King who is coming, the just one, the savior, and the meek one, by his having ascended upon both the beast of burden and the young foal. Whosoever, therefore, has received him will no longer fear those of the heterodox sect, who are armed with the powers of eloquence—those called the chariots of Ephraim, to be cut off by the Lord—and who harm many, those who desire to dwell in Jerusalem and to attend to sound doctrine: he will not fear

^A even a treacherous horse for salvation, this being an insane desire familiar to things that fall under the senses.

Concerning this, it is indeed worthy to rejoice

Mark, however, writing about the ass, says that it was spoken by the Lord, "On which no one of men has ever sat," ^B and it seems to me that he is hinting at the fact that those who later believed had never before submitted themselves to the Word before the visitation of Jesus among them. For perhaps no one of men had yet sat upon the colt, but some of the wild beasts or of the powers foreign to the Word had sat upon it; since the wealth of the adverse powers is spoken of in the prophet Isaiah as being carried upon asses and camels in these words: "In the tribulation and anguish, the lion and the lion’s whelp, and from there also the offspring of flying asps, which were carrying their wealth upon asses and camels." ^C But it must again be asked of those who attend only to the naked letter, whether, according to them, it would not seem to have been written in vain: "On which no one of men has yet sat." For who besides a human being sits on a colt? And so much for our own thoughts.

19. Let us also see what Heracleon says,

^A which he did not take from another, he interprets in his own way, saying that the whip is an image of the power and operation of the Holy Spirit, which drives out those who are worse; and he says that the whip, and the linen, and the shroud, and all such things, are an image of the power and operation of the Holy Spirit. Afterward he assumes for himself what is not written, namely that the whip was tied to a piece of wood, which wood 92 he takes as a figure of the cross, and says that by this wood the gamblers, merchants, and all malice were consumed and destroyed. And I do not know by what trifles he says that the whip was made from these two things, seeking how it was made by Jesus; for he says he did not make it from dead skin, in order to prepare the Church not as a den of thieves and merchants any longer, but as the house of his Father.

But that which is most necessary must also be said to Heracleon himself concerning the divinity, from this context. For if Jesus says that the temple which was in Jerusalem is the house of his own Father, and that temple had been made to the glory of Him who created heaven and earth, how are we not immediately taught not to think that the Son of God is the son of anyone else than Him who created heaven and earth, the Son of God? To this house of the Father of Jesus, therefore, as existing as a house of prayer, the apostles of Christ also, as we find in their Acts, are commanded by the angel to go and stand ^B and speak to the people all the words of this life. Moreover, they go through the Beautiful Gate to pray there, as to a house of prayer; they would not have done this, had they not known that God was the same as the One who was worshipped by those who had consecrated that temple to God. Therefore, obeying God rather than men, Peter and the apostles say: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you handled and hanged on a tree"; for they do not know that Jesus was raised from the dead by any other God than the God of their fathers, whom Christ also, glorifying Him, declares to be the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, not of the dead, but of the living. And how would the disciples, if the house had not been of the same God as the God of Christ, have remembered these words: "The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up," which are said in the sixty-eighth Psalm? For so it is set down in the Prophet, "eats," in the present tense, and not "ate," in the past tense. But Christ loves the house of God in each of us ^C exceedingly, not wishing it to become a house of trade, nor wishing that the house of prayer should become a den of thieves, seeing that He is the Son of the zealous God, if we may listen to them more candidly ^D.

^A words from the Scriptures, taken by metaphor from human affairs, to demonstrate that God wishes nothing alien to His own will to be mixed into the soul of all men, but especially those who wish to admit the most divine faith. Yet it must be known that the sixty-eighth Psalm, containing: “The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up,” and a little later: “They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” (both of which are written in the Gospels), is spoken in the person of Christ, showing no change in the person speaking. But Heracleon very unobservantly thinks that “The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up” is spoken in the person of those powers that were cast out and consumed by the Savior, not being able to preserve the sequence of prophecy in the Psalm. For ^B if we understand these things to be spoken in the person of the powers that were cast out and consumed, it follows, by his own logic, that those words written in the same Psalm, “They gave me also gall for my meat,” should also be spoken by those same powers. But, as is probable, that expression “hath eaten me up” disturbed him (as if it could not be said by Christ), because he does not see the custom of the Scriptures to attribute human feelings to God and Christ.

20. “Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” ^C Those who are lovers of the body and of sensible things seem to me now to be signified by the Jews, who, being vexed that those were cast out by Jesus who were making the house of the Father a house of merchandise by the things they were doing, demand a sign by which the Son of God, whom they do not receive, might be seen to do these things in a becoming manner. But the Savior, connecting the discourse concerning His own body as if He were speaking about that temple, answers those who ask, “What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?” with: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” For although He was able to show ten thousand other signs, yet to the question, “Seeing that thou doest these things,” He could show no other sign; therefore, He answered conveni- ^D ently with things that pertained to the temple, instead of with other signs that did not concern the temple at all. Nevertheless, both the temple and the body of Jesus, according to one understanding, seem to me to be a type of the Church, for the reason that it is built of living stones,

^A a "holy priesthood," becoming built "upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone," and thus existing as a temple. But because of what is said, "Now you are the body of Christ, and members in particular," even if the joining and harmony of the stones of the temple may seem to be destroyed and scattered, as it is written in the twenty-first Psalm, nevertheless, all the bones of Christ, because of the snares in the persecutions and tribulations, and because of those who make war upon the unity of the temple on account of persecutions, the temple will be raised up, and the body will be brought to life on the third day after the day of wickedness that is present in it, and after the day of the consummation that is subsequent to this. For the third day will stand fast in the new heaven and the new earth, when these bones—namely, the ^B whole house of Israel—will be awakened on the Great Lord’s Day, with death conquered, so that the resurrection of Christ, which has already taken place from the passion of the cross, contains the mystery of the resurrection of the whole body of Christ. Just as that sensible body of Jesus was crucified, and buried, and after this was raised, so the whole body of Christ's saints is crucified together with Christ, and now no longer lives. For each of them, just like Paul, glories in nothing else except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom he himself is crucified to the world, and the world to him. Therefore, not only is each one crucified together with Christ and to the world, but he is also buried with Christ: "For we were buried with him," ^C says Paul, adding also, as if he had arrived at some pledge of the resurrection: "And we have risen with him"; afterward he walks in a certain newness of life, as one who has not yet risen in that blessed and perfect resurrection. Either, therefore, one is crucified now and after that is buried, or he is now being buried, having been removed from the cross, and someday, inasmuch as he has now been buried, he is to be resurrected. But the mystery of our resurrection is great and completely difficult to contemplate; which is proclaimed not only in many other places of the Scriptures, but also in Ezekiel in these words: "And the hand of the Lord was upon me, and led me forth in the Spirit of the Lord, and set me in the midst of the field, and it was full of human bones; and he led me around them in a circuit, and behold, there were very many upon the face of the field, ^D and behold, they were very dry. And he said to me: Son of man, shall these bones live? And I said: O Lord, Lord, you know these things. And he said to me: Prophesy over these bones, and you shall say to them: Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord." And after a few words: "And the Lord spoke to me, saying: Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; and they say: Our bones have withered, our hope is lost, we have failed." For to what bones is it said: "Hear the word of the Lord," as if they were sensible of the word of the Lord, since they are in their own graves?

house of Israel, if not to the body of Christ, of which the Lord said: ^A "All my bones are scattered," when in fact his own physical bones had not been scattered, nor was even one of them broken? Therefore, when this resurrection of the true and more perfect body of Christ takes place, then will the members of Christ—namely, those bones which in the present, by comparison with the future, are dry—be joined, bone to its bone, and joint to its joint; for no one who is deprived of a joint will reach the perfect man, "unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ"; and then the many members will be one body, all the many members of the body becoming one body. But the distinction of foot, and hand, and eye, and hearing, and smell, which individually complete the head, and individually the feet, and the rest of the members, both the weaker and more humble, and the uncomely and comely, it belongs to God alone to make, who shall temper the body together, ^B and then, more than now, giving more abundant honor to that which lacks it, so that there may be no schism in the body, but the members may have the same care one for another; and if one member suffers any sensitivity, all the members suffer with it, or if one member is glorified, all the members rejoice with it.

21. These things are spoken by me, not apart from the institution, concerning the temple and those expelled from it, of which the Savior says: "The zeal of thy house shall eat me up"; and also concerning the Jews who asked that a sign be shown to them, and finally concerning the Lord’s answer to them, connecting the word of the temple to the word of his own body, and saying: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." For from this temple, which is the body of Christ, it is necessary that these things that are irrational and commercial be driven out, ^C so that it may no longer be a house of merchandise. And this temple must be destroyed by those who plot against the Word of God, and after being destroyed, be raised up on the third day as we have previously said; at which time the disciples also, because the Word said it before the temple of God was destroyed, will remember what he said, and will believe, being perfected then with knowledge and faith, but also in the word which Jesus spoke. And each one of those who are of this sort, when Jesus purifies him, having put aside the irrational and the sellers, because of the zeal of the Son of God dwelling in him, will be destroyed so that he may be raised up by Jesus: not on the third day, as far as the proposed text is concerned; for it is not written: "Destroy this temple, and on the third day I will raise it up," ^D but, "in three days." For it is raised up

^A on the first day after its being brought to ruin, and on the second, but its rising is completed in the full three days. Therefore a resurrection has taken place, and there will be a resurrection, if indeed we have been buried together with Christ, and have risen together with Him. And since the word "we have risen together" is not sufficient for the whole resurrection, [it is added]: "In Christ all will be made alive, but each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then those who are Christ’s at His coming, then the end." For it was a matter of resurrection that He was in the paradise of God on the first day; and it was [also] resurrection when, appearing, He said: "Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father." But the perfect resurrection was when He goes to the Father. Since, however, some are confused when they come to the passage regarding the Father and the Son, adducing that saying: "We are found also as false witnesses of God, because we have testified concerning God that He raised up Christ, ^B whom He did not raise up," and similar things which declare the one who raised [Him] to be different from the one who was raised; and also that [other] saying: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"—it is as if it were established from these that the Son does not differ in number from the Father; but [that they mean] that both are one, not only in substance, but also in subject, according to certain understandings, and are not said to be Father and Son as diverse in hypostasis—to them we ought to reply in the first place with the words which principally prove that the Son is another than the Father, and that it is necessary for the Son to be the Son of the Father, and the Father to be the Father of the Son. After this, it is not absurd that He who confesses to be able to do nothing unless He sees the Father doing it, and who says: "Whatever the Father does, the ^C Son also does likewise," should have resurrected the dead [body], which was the body, the Father granting this to Him—who is the Father who must principally be said to have raised Christ from the dead. Heracleon, however, says "in three" instead of "on the third," having not inquired—although he noted the words "in three"—how the resurrection is performed in three days. Furthermore, he calls the third day the spiritual day, in which they suppose the resurrection of the Church is declared. It is a consequence of these things that the first day is called earthly, the second animal, with no resurrection of the Church having taken place in them. Indeed, those things which are written in the Gospel according to Matthew and Mark concerning the false witnesses, at the end of the Gospel, accusing our Lord Jesus Christ, seem to have relation to that saying: "Destroy this temple, and I in three days will raise it up." For He was speaking of the temple of His body, ^D while they, suspecting it to be spoken of that temple which had been built from stones...

were accusing Him ^A, saying: "This man said: 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and in three days build it up';" or as Mark 49 says: "We heard Him saying, that 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another not made with hands'." When also the high priest, standing up, said to Him: "Do you answer nothing? What do these testify against you?" But Jesus was silent; or as Luke 50 says: "And the high priest standing in the midst asked Jesus saying: 'Do you answer nothing? What do these testify against you?' But He was silent and answered nothing." I think it necessary that these things also, which have reference to the text in hand, be set forth.

22. "The Jews therefore said: 'Forty and six years was this temple in building, and will you raise it up in three days?'" ^B How the Jews can say that this temple was built in forty and six years, if we follow the history, we cannot say. For it is written in the Third Book of Kings 53 that they prepared the stones and the timber in three years. "In the fourth year, in the month of Ziv, when Solomon was king over Israel, the king commanded, and they took large precious stones for the foundation of the house, and unhewn stones; and the sons of Solomon and the sons of Hiram hewed them 54, and they set them as a foundation in the fourth year, and they founded the house of the Lord in the month of Nisan (which is the second month), and in the second month; but in the eleventh year, in the month of Baal, which is the eighth month, the house was finished in all its parts, and according ^C to all its disposition 55." If, therefore, we add together the preparation with the time of the construction, the number of eleven years is not completed for the building of the temple. Why then do the Jews say: "Forty and six years was this temple in building?" Unless perhaps someone, being hard-pressed, should contend to show that the time of forty and six years is completed from that time when David says to Nathan the prophet, consulting about the building of the temple: "Behold, I dwell in a house of cedar, and the ark of God dwells in the midst of the tent 56." For even if he was forbidden, as a man of blood, to build it himself, yet he seems to have occupied himself with gathering the material of the temple. ^D Therefore David the king says in the first book of Paralipomenon 57 to all the congregation: "Solomon my son, in whom the Lord has been pleased, is young and delicate; and the work is great, for it is not for man, but for the Lord God; according to all the strength which I have prepared for the house of my God, gold, silver..."

and brass, and iron, and wood, stones of Sodom, and of fullness, and costly stones, and various, and every precious stone, and much Parian marble. Moreover, because I have set my affection on the house of my God, I have of my own, what I have acquired, gold and silver: and behold, I have given it for the house of my God in elevation; of so much have I prepared for the house of the holy places, three thousand talents of gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of refined silver, for the house of God to be incrusted with them by the hands of craftsmen. For David reigned seven years in Hebron, and thirty-three in Jerusalem. Therefore, if anyone can show that the beginning of the preparation of the temple occurred while he was gathering the suitable material from the fifth year of his reign, he will be able, if pressed, to speak of the forty-six years. Another person will say that the temple which is pointed out is not that which was built by Solomon—for that was destroyed ^B during the times of the captivity—but that which was built under Ezra; concerning which we cannot openly show a narrative that tells truly of forty-six years. There also appears in the Book of Maccabees a great instability and confusion concerning the temple and concerning the people; and I do not know if the temple was ever rebuilt in so many years. Heracleon, indeed, even without having inspected the history, says that Solomon built the temple in forty-six years, which was an image of the Savior; and he refers the number six to the matter, that is, to the fashioning; but the number forty, which is, he says, a quaternity incapable of being coupled, he refers to the insufflation and the seed of the insufflation. But do you see if you can take, by the number forty, the four elements of the world which are placed in the corners of the temple, and by the number six, man, who was made on the sixth day.

23. ^C And he was speaking of the temple of his body. When, therefore, he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken, namely, that the body of the Son is called his temple. It is worth inquiring whether this should be taken simply, or whether one must strive to refer everything that is written about the temple to the discourse about the body of Jesus, namely, that which he took from the Virgin, or to the Church, which itself is also called the body of Christ, and for which we are also called members of Christ himself by the Apostle. And thus, at least, someone ^D liberating himself from difficulties, and despairing that he can refer each of the things which are said about the temple to the body, in either way [index: entries preserved]

will have recourse to a simpler understanding, saying that for this reason the body—understood in both ways—was called a temple, because just as that temple had the glory of God dwelling within it, so too, being the image and glory of God, the Firstborn of all creation, represents his own body or the Church, which can reasonably be said to be the temple of God, carrying the image. But for our part, seeing that it is difficult to speak of each of the things said about the temple in the third book of Kings, and far greater than our discourse, and besides that it does not pertain to the present writing, we defer. Nevertheless, in such matters, being persuaded that it is the property of the divinely inspired Scripture to explain the wisdom hidden in a mystery, which none of the rulers of this age has known—since it surpasses human nature—and perceiving moreover that we ourselves lack the wisdom of the excellent Spirit to understand such things as becomes a priest, we shall attempt, in as few words as possible, to describe the understanding of this passage, having been taught by Peter that the Church is the body and the house of God, built from living stones, a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, so that for this reason the son of David is a figure of Christ, building the temple; who, after the wars, when the deepest peace had been made, builds the temple to the glory of God in the earthly Jerusalem, so that worship might no longer be performed in a tent that is subject to change, we shall attempt to refer each of the things pertaining to the temple to the Church. For perhaps if all enemies become the footstool of Christ's feet, and the last enemy, death, is destroyed, there will be the most perfect peace when Christ becomes Solomon—which is translated 'peaceable'—the prophecy being fulfilled in him which says: 'With those who hated peace, I was peaceable.' And then each of the living stones, according to the worthiness of this present life, shall be a stone of the temple: one indeed an apostle or prophet in the foundation, bearing those placed upon him; another, after those in the foundation, being himself borne by the apostles, and yet himself also bearing the weaker ones along with the apostles; and one stone will be of the inner sanctuary, where the ark and the cherubim and the mercy seat are; another will be of the vestibule; and yet another outside the vestibule of the Levites and priests, the stone of the altar on which the oblations of fruits are offered. And the economy and ministry concerning these things will be entrusted to holy powers, the angels of God, some of which are dominions, or thrones, or principalities, or powers; while others are subject to these, of whom those six hundred and three thousand officials—the officials appointed over the works of Solomon—are figures, as well as the seventy thousand who do the bearing, and the eighty thousand stone-cutters in the mountain, who perform the works and are preparing the stones and wood. Observe

^A that those who are recorded as carrying burdens are related to the number seven; but the stone-cutters, who also shape the stones so that they may be harmonious for the temple, are related to the number eight; and the overseers, who number six hundred, are connected to the perfection of the number six, sort of multiplied by itself. ^B However, the preparation of the stones, being lifted and made ready for the building, completed in three years, seems to me to signify the time, as it were, of the interval related to the Trinity in the eternal realm. These things will take place when peace is perfected after four hundred and thirty years of the economy of the events concerning the Exodus from Egypt, and of the things ordained in Egypt after Jesus, and thirty years ^C from the covenant given by God to Abraham, so that from Abraham to the beginning of the building of the temple there are two sabbatical numbers, seven hundred and seventy, when our King Christ also commands not to take the common [(44)] stones for the foundation of the house, but large, precious, unhewn stones, so that they may be hewn not by common laborers, but by the sons of Solomon; for this we have found written in the third book of Kings. Then also, because of the great peace, Hiram, king of Tyre, assists in the building of the temple, giving his own sons to the sons of Solomon to join in hewing the large and precious stones for the holy [temple], and in the fourth [(45)] year being established for the ^D [following]. [alt-version omitted] [(45)] "When peace is perfected after years, etc." These things are manifestly corrupt. Thus they can be repaired. The Royal Codex has, "These were read by Perionius and Ferrarius, and thus an ignorant scribe had written, thinking [for], by the custom of tachygraphers, by whom it is usual to contract words of this name. But Origen clearly wrote [years], which is what is held in Galatians iii, 17. And the two sums composed into one will give the double sabbatical number, namely seven hundred and seventy years. I leave it to the masters of this art to scrutinize the mind of Origen and the writing, as to which is correct and consonant with chronological computations. I will produce one passage of Josephus, from which it can be judged, from book VIII of the Antiquities, chap. 2, n. 3: "And Solomon began this construction in the fourth year of his reign, in the second month, which the Macedonians call Artemisium, but the Hebrews Iar, five hundred and ninety-two years after the Israelites had gone out of Egypt; a thousand and twenty years after Abraham's migration from the Mesopotamian region into Canaan." HUETIUS. [(44)] "Our Christ... [not to take] common [stones]." These are lacking in the Royal Codex and consequently in the edition of Huetius, but are restored from the Bodleian Codex. [(45)] "To the holy and... fourth." Thus the Bodleian Codex; Regius, "to the holy and worthy fourth."

^A and consequently to the foundation of the house of the Lord. And yet it is in the eighth month of the eighth year from the foundation that the house is completed.

24. It will not be absurd, however, for those who think that nothing beyond the history is indicated by these things, to bring forward persuasive arguments to lead them to seek the sense of the Spirit, as is worthy ^B of the words of the Spirit. For were the sons of the kings engaged in the hewing of great and precious stones, taking up a craft alien to royal nobility? And is the number of the burden-bearers, and stone-cutters, and overseers, and even the time for the preparation of the stones, and the record of such like things, written down just as it happened? But the holy house being built for God in peace had to be built without hammer, and axe, and any iron tool, so that nothing tumultuous should follow in the temple of God. But again I am at a loss before those who serve the letter: how is it possible that, when there were ^C eighty thousand stone-cutters, the house of God was built with hard, white stones, without a hammer, or an axe, or any iron tool being heard in his house while it was being built? But perhaps the stones being hewn are living, being hewn silently and tranquilly somewhere outside the temple, so that they may come ready for the place of the building that is fitting for them. And there is also a certain ascent around the house of God that is not cornered, having reflections of straight lines. For it is written: "And the ascent was winding to the middle; and from the middle to the third [story]." For the ascent in the temple of God had to be winding, the winding ascent imitating the most equal circle. And in order that this house may be secure, as ^D beautifully as possible, there are built for it bonds five cubits in height through the entire house, so that our ascent from sensible things to what are called the divine senses might be revealed, being in height, for the understanding of the intelligible things. And the place of the more blessed stones seems to be that which is called Dabir, where the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord was, where, so to speak, the handwriting of God happened to be, the tablets written with his finger. And the whole house is gilded: "For the whole house," he says, "he overlaid with gold, until the completion of the whole house." The two cherubim, however, were in the Dabir, which those who translate the Hebrew into Greek have been unable to interpret literally. And some, quite loosely, have called it the temple of...

^A that holds a more honorable place. However, all things in the house are made of gold, as a symbol of the mind that is altogether perfect and possesses accurate discernment of things perceived by the mind; because, since these are not at all easily approached or known to the many, a veil of the court is constructed, with the innermost things not revealed to the majority of the priests and Levites.

25. It is also a question worth asking how Solomon is said, as king, to build the temple, while Hiram is received by Solomon, after having been summoned, as an architect who was sent from Tyre, the son of a widowed woman, and one who was from the tribe of Naphtali, and whose father was a Tyrian, a worker in bronze, and full of wisdom and understanding to perform every work in bronze; who, when he had been brought to King Solomon, did all the works. Therefore, consider whether perhaps Solomon can be accepted as the Firstborn of all creation, and Hiram, in turn, as the man whom this Firstborn assumed from the congregation of men (for "Tyrians," if we interpret them, means "the restraining ones"), having by nature a lineage that, being filled with every craft, and wisdom, and understanding, was brought in, collaborating with the Firstborn of all creation, in order to build the temple, in which even ^B secret, oblique windows are fashioned, looking down from above, so that the splendors of the light of God might be able to be received in a saving way (and why must I relate each detail?), ^C so that the body of Christ, the Church, may be found, having the definition of the spiritual house and temple of God. As I said before, we need that wisdom which is hidden in mystery, which is accessible only to him who can say: “But we have the mind of Christ,” so that we may interpret spiritually each of the things that have been said according to the will of Him who arranged for these things to be written. Otherwise, it is not for the present reading to explain each of these things in detail. And so, these things are sufficient to see how He spoke regarding the temple of His body. ^D

26. Furthermore, it is worthy to see, after these things, if it is possible that what history relates to have happened in the temple should ever happen, or be about to happen, concerning the spiritual house. But the argument seems to press us on both sides; for whether we say that it is possible for these things to happen, or that they happened in a certain way in the spiritual house, those who hear it will grudgingly admit the transmutation of such goods; first, because it does not please them that it should be so, and second, because it seems inconsistent that there should be a transmutation of goods. But if, desiring to keep immutable the goods that were once given to the saints, we do not adapt these things which history narrates, we will seem to be doing something similar to the heretics in this matter, by questioning the harmony of the narrative of the Scriptures.

^A If, however, we do not intend to understand the promises recorded in the prophets, and especially in Isaiah, in an old-wife’s tale or Judaic manner, as if they were to happen concerning the earthly Jerusalem, it is necessary that—if it is said that certain glorious things happened after the captivity and the destruction of the temple, regarding the rebuilding of the temple and the restoration of the people from captivity—we say that the temple occurred, and the people were taken captive, and they were to return to Judea and to Jerusalem, and that Jerusalem itself was to be built with precious stones. But I do not know if, as long periods of time revolve, it is possible for the same things to happen again, albeit for the worse. ^B The promises in Isaiah are as follows: “Behold, I prepare for you a carbuncle for your stone, and your foundations of sapphire; and I will set your battlements with jasper, and your gates with stones of crystal, and your fence with chosen stones, and all your children as taught of God; and in much peace shall your children be, and you shall be built in righteousness.” And a little later to the same Jerusalem: “And the glory of Lebanon shall come to you with cypress, and pine, and cedar, together, to glorify my holy place. And the sons of those who humbled you and provoked you shall go to you, and you shall be called the City of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel, because you have been forsaken and hated, and there was no one to help you. And I will make you an everlasting exultation, a joy for generations of generations; and you shall suck the milk of nations, and you shall eat the wealth of kings, and you shall know that I am the Lord who saves you, and delivers you, the God of Israel. ^C And instead of bronze I will bring you gold, and instead of iron I will bring you silver; and instead of wood I will bring you bronze, and instead of stones iron; and I will give your rulers in peace, and your bishops in righteousness; and iniquity shall no longer be heard in your land, nor destruction and misery in your borders; but your walls shall be called salvation, and your gates a carving. And the sun shall no longer be for you a light by day, nor will the rising of the moon illuminate the night for you; but Christ shall be your eternal light, and God your glory; for the sun shall not set for you, and the moon shall not fail you, for the Lord shall be your eternal light, and the days of your mourning shall be fulfilled.” For these things are clearly prophesied concerning the future age to the sons of Israel dwelling in captivity, to whom came the one who was sent, who said: ^D “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But if, being captives, they are to receive these things in their own fatherland when even proselytes shall come to them through Christ and flee to them, according to what is said: “Behold, proselytes shall come to you through me, and shall flee to you,” it is clear that regarding the temple, those who were taken captive and shall return there again [to be rebuilt, most precious...

stones already made. For anyone who overcomes in the Apocalypse, according to John, has the promise that he will be a pillar in the temple of God, and shall go no more out. All these things have been said by me so that we might have at least a brief understanding of the things regarding the temple, and the house of God, and the Church, and Jerusalem, about which it is not the time at present to speak in detail. But to those who do not grow weary in reading the prophecies to seek in them the spiritual sense, there is the necessity of making the most accurate and careful examination concerning these matters, even down to any incidental point. And so much for the temple of His body.

27. But since “when ^B He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this, and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said,” it must be understood, as far as the text is concerned, that the disciples, after the Lord had risen from the dead, understood that the things said about the temple referred to His passion and resurrection, remembering that those words: “In three days I will raise it ^C up,” declared the resurrection: when also they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said, whereas they had not previously been said to have believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said. For faith is properly that of one who with his whole soul admits that which is believed in baptism. But as it pertains to the higher understanding, since the resurrection of the whole body of the Lord from the dead has been previously mentioned to us, we ought to know that the disciples, being reminded ^D by the effects of the Scripture, which they did not accurately understand when they were in His life, now that it had come under their view and been made manifest, and being reminded of what heavenly things these were the pattern and shadow, believed those things which they had not believed before, as well as the word of Jesus, which before the resurrection, as the speaker intended it, they did not understand. For how can one be said to believe the Scripture properly if he does not contemplate the sense of the Holy Spirit that is in it, which God desires to be believed more than the will of the letter? According to this understanding, no one who walks according to the flesh is to be said to believe the spiritual things of the law, of which he does not even imagine the beginning. However, they say that those who have not seen and have believed are more blessed than those who have seen and believed, misinterpreting what was said at the end of the Gospel according to John by the Lord to Thomas: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” But He does not say that those who have not seen and have believed are more blessed than those who have seen and believed; otherwise, according to this understanding, those who are after the apostles would be more blessed than the apostles themselves, which is the most foolish thing of all. Therefore, he who is to be blessed must see with his mind the things that are believed, as the apostles did, being able to hear: “Blessed are the eyes,” but it must be said, with the mind.

And also this: “Many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see them, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear them.” ^A Yet it is also lovely to accept the lesser blessing, which says: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” But how could the eyes which are blessed by Jesus for the things seen not be more blessed than those who have not arrived at the vision of such things? Simeon, therefore, content to have received the salvation of God into his arms, and having contemplated it, said: “Now you dismiss your servant, O Lord, according to your word, in peace; for my eyes have seen your salvation.” Wherefore we must strive to open our eyes, according to Solomon, so that we may be filled with bread. For he says: “Open your eyes, and be filled with bread.” And let this be said ^B by me concerning the text: “They believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said,” so that we may grasp that the perfection of faith, from the things we have examined regarding faith, will be given to us in the great resurrection from the dead of the whole body of Jesus, which is His holy Church. For what has been said regarding knowledge, “Now I know in part,” I believe it is consistent to say also of every good thing; and among the rest is faith. Wherefore, “Now I believe in part; but when the perfection of faith cometh, that which is in part shall be done away,” as faith through a form [by sight] differs greatly from faith—if I may so speak—through a glass and in a riddle, similar to our present knowledge.

^C 28. “But when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, in the feast, many believed in his name, seeing his signs which he did. But Jesus himself did not believe himself to them, because he knew all, and because he had no need that anyone should testify concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man.” One might ask how, since it was testified that they believed, Jesus did not believe Himself to those who believe in Him. It must be said to this, that Jesus does not not-believe Himself to those who believe in Him, but to those who believe in His name; for believing in Him differs from believing in His name. For he who will not be judged through faith is not judged by believing in Him, but not by believing in His name; for the Lord says: “He who believes in me is not ^D judged,” but He does not say, “He who believes in my name is not judged.” And yet He does not say, “He who believes in me is already judged.” For perhaps he who believes in His name does indeed believe, and therefore is not worthy to be already judged, but he is lesser than he who believes in Him. For this reason, Jesus does not commit Himself to the one who believes in His name. More so, therefore...

it is necessary to hold to His name, lest, doing mighty works in His name, we hear those things said to those who boasted only in His name, but rather let us be confident, becoming imitators of Paul, to say: "I can do all things through Christ Jesus who strengthens me." And this must be noted, that above He says the Passover of the Jews is near, but here Jesus was not at the Passover of the Jews, but at the Passover in Jerusalem; and there indeed, when it is called the Passover of the ^A Jews, a feast day is not mentioned, but here it is written that Jesus was at the feast day; for Christ, being in Jerusalem at the Passover, was also at the feast day, with many even believing in His name. And it must be noted indeed, that many are said to believe not in Him, but in His name. But those who believe in Him are those who walk along the narrow and straitened way, leading unto life, which is found by the very few. It is possible, however, that many of those who believe in His name may recline with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; because "many shall come from the East and the West, and shall recline with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven," which is the house of the Father, in which there are many mansions. And this also ^B must be noted, that many, believing in His name, do not believe as Andrew, and Peter, and Nathanael, and Philip believed; but they are persuaded by the testimony of John saying: "Behold the Lamb of God," or by the Christ found by Andrew, or by Jesus saying to Philip: "Follow me," or by Philip saying: "Him of whom Moses and the prophets wrote, we have found Jesus the son of Joseph from Nazareth." But these believed in His name by seeing His signs which He did; and to those believing in signs, not in Him but in His name, Jesus did not commit Himself, knowing all men, and having no need that any should testify about a man, in that He knew what was in each of ^C men. 29. These words, "He had no need that any should testify about a man," ought to be used opportunely for demonstrating that the Son of God is able from Himself to perceive the individual things of men, and needs absolutely no testimony from anyone. But the words, "He had no need that any should testify about a man," must be distinguished from the words, "He has no need that any should testify about anyone." For if this term "man" is taken for everyone who is according to the image of God, or for every rational being, Christ will have no need that any should testify about him, regarding whomsoever of the rational beings, knowing from Himself those things regarding him—regarding whomsoever of them—regarding man, and regarding whomsoever. ^D

^A But if we were to observe "of man" in the sense of the mortal, rational living creature, one person might say that He has need of someone to testify about those things that are above man, as if He were not sufficient to know these things as He does human things. Another person, however, says that He who emptied Himself has no need of anyone to testify about man, but has need of someone to testify about those things which are superior to man.

30. And this also must be sought, how many signs of His the many saw and believed in Him; for it is not written that He had performed signs in Jerusalem, unless perhaps signs were performed but were not written down. Consider, however, whether that which He performed—a whip of cords, and [the act of] casting them all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen, and pouring out the small ^B coins of the money-changers, and overturning the tables—can be reckoned among the signs. Yet toward those who suspect that He had no need of witnesses regarding only men, it should be said that the Evangelist has attributed two things to Him: the first, that He knows everyone; and the second, that He has no need for anyone to testify about man. For if He knew everyone, He knew not only men, but also those things above man, and He knew all those who were outside such bodies; and He knew what was in man, inasmuch as He was greater than those who, in prophesying, expose [and] judge, and bring the secret things of the heart into the open, for all those things which the Spirit suggests to them.

But the phrase, "He knew what was in man," can also be understood ^C as referring to the powers, whether evil or good, working in men. For if anyone gives a place to the devil, Satan enters into him, just as Judas gave [a place], "the devil having already cast it into his heart, that he might betray Jesus"; for which reason "after the morsel, Satan entered into him." But if one gives a place to God, he becomes blessed: "For blessed is he whose help is from God, and whose ascents are in his heart, from God." You know what was in man, You who know all things, O Son of God. Now that the tenth tomus has received a sufficient description, let us here bring our discourse to a close.

ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN: TOMUS XIII

^A To you, most God-loving and most pious Ambrose, it did not perhaps seem that the discourse on the Samaritan woman should be divided, so that one part of it would be in the twelfth tome and the rest in the thirteenth. But because we saw that the twelfth tome of the ^B Commentary had received a sufficient amount of writing, it seemed good to us to end at the discourse of the Samaritan woman concerning the well (as she calls it) of which Jacob gave to her, and from which he himself drank, and his sons, and his cattle, and to begin the thirteenth tome from the answer of the Lord to her. "Jesus answered and said to her: Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him, it will become in him a spring of water leaping up into eternal life." This is the second response Jesus makes to the Samaritan woman, having previously said: "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water." And now, as if urging her to ask for the living water, he says the things we have recounted. To the first response, the Samaritan woman says nothing, but she doubts regarding the comparison ^C of the waters; but after the second response of the Lord, accepting what had been said by him, she says, "Give me this water." For perhaps it is a dogma that no one receives a divine gift unless they ask for it. Therefore, the Father himself encourages the Savior through the psalm to ask, so that it may be given to him, just as the Son himself teaches us, saying: "The Lord said to me, 'You are my Son; ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your possession.'" And the Savior says: "Ask, and it will be given to you; for everyone who asks receives." The Samaritan woman, however, is persuaded to ask Jesus for water, being ^D an image, as he has shown you.

^A Having previously made mention of those who, being alienated from the decrees of the Church, are exercised in the divine Scriptures, when one hears of the comparison of both waters. And see from what she had suffered, how, drinking from the well which she supposed to be deep, she was neither refreshed nor delivered from thirst.

2. Let us see, then, what is signified by the words, "Everyone who drinks from this water will thirst again." ^B Now, regarding the expression "to thirst" and "to hunger," in a literal and bodily sense there are two significations: one, in which we are in need of food, having become empty and craving it because that which is moist/liquid has failed us; the other, in which often the poor and those who are in lack of the necessary things say, even if they have been satisfied, that they are hungry or thirsty. And indeed, there is testimony for the first in Exodus, when, being in need of food, "on the nineteenth day, in the second month after they had gone out of the land of Egypt, the whole congregation of the sons of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron, and the sons of Israel said to them: Would that we had died, smitten by the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat, and were eating bread to satiety; for you have led us out into this wilderness, to kill ^C all this congregation by famine. And the Lord said to Moses: Behold, I rain upon you bread from heaven, and the people shall go out, and gather what is sufficient for the day, that I may test them whether they will walk in my law or not." For when they were hungry and in need of necessary food, how much murmuring did their words cause! But also when they were in lack of water and were thirsty, they murmured against Moses, saying: "What shall we drink?" when Moses cried to the Lord, and the Lord showed him a tree, and he cast it into the water, and the water became sweet. And after a little, when they came to Raphidim, it is written that the people thirsted there for water, and the people murmured there against Moses. But it will seem that an example of the second of the significations is found in Paul, who says: "Even to this present hour we hunger and thirst and are naked." Consequently, the first hunger and thirst befalls healthy bodies by necessity, but the second happens to those who are in poverty. We must inquire, therefore, also from the words, "Everyone who drinks from this water will thirst again," in what sense it is said that he will thirst.

3. First, as concerns the bodily sense ^D it is signified that even if for the present he is satisfied, nevertheless, immediately upon the drink being removed, the one who has drunk will suffer the same passion, that is, he will thirst again, having been returned to a state similar to the original; he adds...

^A “Whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall become in him a spring of water leaping up to eternal life.” But who, having a spring within himself, would be able to thirst? Yet the primary meaning of these words would be as follows: Whoever participates, he says, in the depth of human wisdom, and, even if he rests for a little while, having received the matters drawn up and the thoughts that seem to be discovered as if they were very deep, yet again, having applied his mind a second time, he will be in doubt concerning those things in which he had rested ^B—he is unable to provide the depth that is supposed by him. Therefore, even if someone, having been seized by the plausibility of the things being said, assents, yet later he will find the same doubt existing in him which he possessed before he learned these things. But my discourse, says Christ, is such that the source of the vital drink will become established in the one who has received the things promised by me; and I am going to bestow such benefits upon him who has taken my water, that a fountain, a discoverer of all things that are sought, will spring forth in him, with the intelligence leaping up, and perhaps swiftly flying over, consequently to this water, being easily moved: by the very act of leaping and crossing over, carrying him aloft, namely, to eternal life. Just as ^C when Salomon discoursed about the Bridegroom in the Song of Songs, he says: “Behold, he comes leaping upon the mountains, skipping over the hills.” For in this way the Bridegroom leaps upon the more noble and divine souls, called mountains, but skips over the more inferior ones, called hills; thus, in this place, the fountain made in him who has drunk of the water which Jesus gives, leaps to eternal life, and perhaps will even leap beyond eternal life, namely to the Father who exists above eternal life. For Christ is life: therefore, he who is greater than Christ is also greater than life.

4. Furthermore, he will have the fountain of water leaping up to eternal life within himself, who has drunk of the water that Jesus gives; when the promise is fulfilled for the man to whom beatitude is promised in that he has hungered and thirsted for righteousness; for the Son of God says: ^D “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” And perhaps, since to hunger and thirst for righteousness is to be satisfied, if someone should perform righteousness before he is satisfied, then hunger and thirst...

must be induced within him, that he may be able to say: “As the deer pants for the fountains of waters, so my soul pants for you, O God. My soul has thirsted for God, the strong, the living; when shall I come and appear before the face of God?” ^A In order, therefore, that we may thirst, it is good to drink first from the fountain of Jacob, not calling it, as the Samaritan woman did, just a well. For the Savior, in answering her discourse, does not even now say that the water is from a well, but simply says: “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again.” And if nothing useful had come from drinking from the fountain, Jesus would not have sat by the fountain, nor would he have said to the Samaritan woman: “Give me to drink.” It must be observed, therefore, that even when the Samaritan woman asked Jesus for the water, he promised to provide it to her not in another place, but at the fountain, saying to her: “Go, call your husband and come here.”

^B Further, let us examine whether, when it is said that he who drinks from the fountain of Jacob will thirst again, while he who drinks from the water that Jesus gives shall have in himself a fountain of water leaping up to eternal life, it may be implied that there is a different benefit for those who have had and will have familiarity with the Truth herself, from that benefit which we think arises for us from the Scriptures, even if they are understood accurately; especially since the Scripture has not been able to contain some of the greatest and diviner mysteries of God, and some not even human speech can contain; and therefore, the meanings signified are divine, while the tongue is human: “For there are many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written individually, I do not think that the world itself could contain the books that would be written.” Moreover, John is forbidden to write what the seven thunders spoke; and Paul says that he heard ^C unspeakable words, which it was not permitted for anyone to speak—not that it was not permitted for anyone at all to speak them, for it was permitted for angels to speak them, but it was not permitted for men; for “all things are indeed permitted, but not all things are profitable,” and the things he heard were unspeakable words which, he says, it is not permitted for a man to speak. I think that the whole of the Scriptures are, as it were, certain minimal elements and briefest introductions to the whole of knowledge, even if they are understood quite accurately. See, therefore, whether the fountain of Jacob, from which Jacob once drank but drinks no longer, and from which his sons also drank—though now they have a drink better than that, and their cattle also drank—might be the whole Scripture; and whether the water of Jesus might be that which is above what is written; for it is not permitted for all to search the things that are above what is ^D written, unless someone be conformed to them, lest he be rebuked upon hearing the saying: “Seek not the things that are too hard for you, and do not search out things stronger than you.”

^A 6. If we say that some things are above what is written, we do not say this because they could be known to the many, but to John, who, while listening, was not permitted to write down what kind of things the thunders spoke, and who learned them, but did not write them down because he spared the world; for he thought that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Moreover, even the things which Paul learned are “unspeakable words,” above what is written, if indeed what is written was spoken by men; and what “the eye hath not seen” is above what is written; and what “the ear hath not heard” cannot be written; and things that have “not ascended into the heart of man” are greater than the well of Jacob, being revealed by the well of water springing up into life eternal to those who no longer have the “heart of man,” but are able to say: “But we have the mind of Christ, that we may know the things that are given us of God; which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom, but in the doctrine of the Spirit.” And consider whether it is possible that human wisdom might not speak false doctrines, but things that confirm the truth and reach those who come after; while those things which the Spirit teaches are perhaps the well of water springing up into life eternal. The Scriptures, therefore, are introductory, from which, when they are accurately understood—now named the well of Jacob—one must ascend to Jesus, so that He may grant us a well of water springing up into life eternal. But not everyone draws from the well of Jacob in the same way; for even if Jacob drank, and his sons, and his cattle, and that Samaritan woman also came to the well itself and drew, see whether Jacob did not perhaps drink prudently with his sons, while his cattle drank more simply and in a more brutish manner; and again, that Samaritan woman drank in yet another way than Jacob and his sons and his cattle. For those who are learned in the Scriptures drink as Jacob and his sons; but the more unlearned and simpler ones, who are called the sheep of Christ, drink just as the sheep of Jacob; and then some who praise the Scriptures, and form certain badly-spoken dogmas under the pretext that they have understood them, drink not otherwise than that Samaritan woman drank before she believed in Jesus.

^D 7. “The woman saith unto him: Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, neither come hither to draw.” Now for the second time the Samaritan woman proclaims the Savior as Lord; first when she says: “Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep,” when she also wonders where He has the living water, and whether He is greater than her supposed father Jacob; and now, when she also asks for that water which, in the one who drinks it, becomes a well of water springing up into life eternal.

^A For if it is true that "You would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water," it is clear that, having said, "Give me this water," she received the living water, so that she might no longer be in want or thirst, nor need to go to the well of Jacob for the sake of drawing, but might, apart from the water of Jacob, perceive the truth in an angelic manner, and be able to do so beyond the capacity of man. For neither do the angels require the well of Jacob in order to drink, but each one has within himself a fountain of water springing up into life eternal, which has been brought into being, and revealed by the Word himself, and by Wisdom itself. It is not possible, however, for one to receive the water given by the Word, which is different from that from the well of Jacob, without having most diligently occupied oneself, out of thirst, with going ^B and drawing from thence, as is the case with him who has many [i]hardships[/i] in this regard, as being one who has been for the most part trained in drawing from the well of Jacob.

8. "He says to her: Go, call your husband, and come here. The woman answered and said: I have no husband." We have said also in what precedes that the law, which is the prince of the soul, to which each one has subjected himself, is this husband. But now we shall also adduce to this matter that testimony of the Apostle out of the Epistle to the Romans, saying: "Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man for as long a time as he lives?" Who, then, lives? We must take "the law" in common, ^C as the law. Then he immediately says: "For the married woman is bound by the law to a living husband," as if he were to say, "to a living husband, which husband is the law." Then again he says: "But if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law of the husband," as if the woman were discharged in that the law has died, and no longer performs the works of a woman toward a husband. Then he says: "So then, if the husband lives, she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man’s wife; but if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so as not to be an adulteress, by becoming another man’s wife." The law according to the letter has died, and the soul is no longer an adulteress by becoming the wife of another, ^D that is, the law according to the spirit. But upon the husband having died to the woman, how could it be said that the woman has also died to the husband, so that we may interpret in this way that: "So, my brethren, you also have been made to die to the law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit to God." If, therefore, the law is the husband, and the Samaritan woman has a certain husband, having subjected herself according to the interpretation of the sounder doctrines to a certain law, by which to live—

everyone who is dissenting from the decrees of the Church. And if in this passage the divine Word also wishes to reveal ^A a soul dissenting from the decrees of the Church, which has set up for itself a law as a ruler, so that, having spurned the husband, as one not legitimate, it might seek another husband, in order to become betrothed to another, namely, to the Word, the Son of God, who is raised from the dead, not again to die, nor to be about to die, but is eternal, remaining and reigning, and subjecting all enemies—"For Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death that he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life that he lives, he lives to God" (Rom. VI, 9, 10), sitting at his right hand, "until all his enemies are made a footstool for his feet" (Hebr. X, 12, 13)—if, I say, these things are so, where ought Jesus to have revealed that the one who was thought to be the husband of the Samaritan woman was not her husband, if not at the well of Jacob, had the woman not denied the husband herself? For this cause Jesus says to her: "Go, call your husband, and come here" (John IV, 16). And now, as if already possessing some of the water springing up unto eternal life, because she had said: "Give me this water" (ibid. 15), and because he who had promised "You would have asked him, and he would have given you living water" (ibid. 10) could not deceive, the woman responded, condemning herself because she had had association with such a husband, and said: "I have no husband" (ibid. 17).

9. Jesus says to her: "You have well said, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you have spoken truly" (ibid. 17, 18). I think that every soul that is introduced to the piety in Christ—which is through the Scriptures—beginning from those things which are subject to the senses and which are called corporeal, has five former husbands, with each sense making a certain husband. But afterwards, when someone, having had association with those things which are perceived by the senses, wishes to rise up, and having turned toward those things which are discerned by the mind, encounters a word which under the pretext of allegory and spiritual concepts is not sound, he, after the five husbands, approaches another, giving, so to speak, a bill of divorce to the first five, and deciding to dwell with the sixth. ^C And until Jesus, by his coming, brings us into the sight and agreement of such a husband, we have association with him and live; but when the Word of the Lord has arrived and has conversed with us, we, denying that husband, say: "I have no husband"—when even the Lord praises us, saying: "You have well said that I have no husband." But the phrase, "This you have spoken truly," is, as it were, a rebuke, as if the woman had not spoken true things in what she said before. And perhaps it was not true that "Jews do not associate with Samaritans"—for Jesus himself, as we have said in what precedes these things, associates with Samaritans, so that he might also benefit them. And it is not true either that "there is no drawing"

and that the well is deep; perhaps it is not even true that Jacob himself drank from the well, and his sons, and his cattle. For if Jacob and his sons and his cattle did not drink in the same way as the Samaritan woman, and yet the Samaritan woman thinks that it was a similar thing, and that she has drunk of a drink that was in every way the same as that which Jacob and his sons and his cattle drank, it is clear that she is speaking falsely. ^A And it is clear that she said it falsely.

10. But let us now see what Heracleon thinks about these points in this place. He says that that life was weak, and temporary, and failing, and its glory; for it was, he says, worldly. And he thinks he brings a demonstration that a worldly life is signified [by the fountain], from the fact that Jacob’s cattle drank from it. And if indeed he were taking as weak, and temporary, and failing that knowledge which is "in part," namely, the knowledge coming from the Scriptures—by comparison of the ineffable words which it is not permitted for a man to utter—all the knowledge which now comes "through a mirror and in a riddle," and which is to be abolished when the perfect comes, we would not have reproached him for this. ^B But if he does this for the sake of discrediting the old, he would be blameworthy. But he is not lying when he says that the water which the Savior gives is from the Spirit and from his own power. And he translates the words "He shall not thirst forever" in these very words: "For eternal is his life, and never corrupted, as that first water which was from the well, but remaining; for the gift and grace of our Savior is unsnatchable, and not consumed, nor corrupted in him who becomes a partaker of it."

But when he calls the first life corruptible, if he meant that life which is according to the letter, seeking and finding by the removal of the veil that life which is from the Spirit, he spoke correctly. But if, by calling it corruptible, he accuses the life of the ancients, it is clear that he does this as one who does not see that those good things have a shadow of things to come. ^C Furthermore, not unskillfully did he interpret the voice of the "springing" water, saying that those who partake of it, being abundantly supplied from above, in their turn also spring forth the things that have been supplied to them. But he also praises the Samaritan woman, as having shown a faith equal and constant to her own nature, not moved by those things which the Savior was saying to her; and we also agree with him if he praises her intent, implying nothing about a superior nature. But if he refers to a natural endowment the fact that the Samaritan woman obeyed the Savior, as if this were not present in all, his argument must be overturned. ^D And I do not know how Heracleon, taking what is not written, says to the words, "Give me this water," that having been slightly instructed by the Word, she finally hated even the place of that which is called Jacob’s well. And furthermore, to the words, "Give me this water, that I may not thirst,"

neither come hither to draw," ^A he says that the woman says these things, indicating the laborious and difficult-to-obtain and non-nourishing nature of that water. For whence can she show that Jacob’s water is non-nourishing? He says, it is clear that he means something like this: "If you wish to receive this water, go, call your husband." And he thinks that the husband whom the Savior says the Samaritan woman has is her *pleroma*, so that, having gone with him to the Savior, she might be able to receive from Him the power and the union and the mixture with her *pleroma*. For, he says, He was not speaking to her of a worldly husband, so that she should call him, since He was not ignorant that she did not have a lawful husband. ^B But clearly here he forces the text, saying that the Savior said to her, "Call your husband, and come hither," which indicates the spouse from the *pleroma*. For if this were so, it would have been necessary for Him to say also to the husband in what manner he was to be called, so that he might go with her to the Savior. But since, as Heracleon says, according to the spiritual understanding she was ignorant of her own husband, but according to the simple understanding she was ashamed to say that she had an adulterer and not a husband, how will He not have commanded in vain, saying: "Go, call your husband, and come hither"? Then, to the words: "You have well said, because I have no husband," he says: ^C "Because in the world the Samaritan woman had no husband; for her husband was in the *Aeon*." And we indeed read: "You have had five husbands;" but in Heracleon we find: "You have had six husbands." And he interprets the six husbands as declaring the whole material wickedness with which she had been entangled and to which she had drawn near, committing fornication contrary to reason, and being subjected to contumely, and rejected and abandoned by them. But it must be said to him that, if the spiritual one fornicated, the spiritual one sinned; but if the spiritual one sinned, the spiritual one was not a good tree; for according to the Gospel, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits." And it is clear that their myth-making falls to pieces. If it is impossible for a good tree to bear evil fruits, and the Samaritan woman is a good tree, because she is spiritual, it is a consequence for him to say that either her fornication was not a sin, or she did not fornicate.

^D 12. "The woman says to Him, 'Lord, I see that You are a prophet. Our fathers adored in this mountain, and you say that at Jerusalem is the place where it behooves to adore.'" Now for the third time the Samaritan woman proclaims our Savior as Lord, when it is also written that she said this last of all to Him; yet

^A she does not yet think Him to be greater than the prophets, nor the one who was prophesied, but merely some prophet. Even the heterodox opinion of those who are occupied with the Scriptures—who have been confounded by her—regarding the five previous husbands and the man whom she had after them, whom she thought to be her husband—this opinion, being unable to discern from the beginning the Word who had confounded her, says that He is a prophet, as if He were some divine being who possessed something more than human, though not as much as He actually had. For this reason, she says, as if having looked up and thinking she had been in a vision, "I perceive that Thou art a prophet."

Concerning this, "Our fathers," ^B and what follows, one must understand the difference between the Samaritans and the Jews regarding the place which they suppose to be holy to them. For the Samaritans, thinking the mountain called Garizim to be holy, worship God there, of which Moses makes mention in Deuteronomy, saying thus: "And Moses commanded the people on that day, saying, 'These shall stand to bless the people on Mount Garizim, having crossed the Jordan: Symeon, Levi, Judas, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin; and these shall stand on the curse on Mount Gebal: Ruben, Gad, and Aser, Zabulon, Dan, and Nephthalim.'" The Jews, however, having considered Sion to be something divine, think that place to be proper to God, chosen by the Father of all; and for this reason they say that the temple was built on it by Solomon, and that all the Levitical and priestly worship is performed there. ^C Following these opinions, each nation has believed that the fathers worshipped God on this or that mountain.

13. And if at any time until now the Samaritans and Jews should argue with one another, each will perplex the other, and the Samaritan will say to the Jew the words of the woman written here: "Our fathers worshipped in this mountain"—showing Garizim—"and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where it behooves to worship." But inasmuch as the Jews—for from them is salvation—bear the image of those who hold sound doctrines, while the Samaritans represent those who dissent from the decrees of the Church, the Samaritans consequently deem Garizim blessed—which is interpreted as "cleft" or "division"—since even the separation and division according to the history of the ten tribes, which were divided from the remaining two, occurred in the times of Jeroboam, who himself is also interpreted as "judgment ^D of the people." The Jews, however, hold to Sion, which means "watchtower." It is likely that someone will inquire why

^A Mosen: to which it must be said, since the word Garizim signifies a cutting and a division, the meaning of cutting is to be taken when the people are split by Jeroboam and the king inhabits Samaria; but the word of division is to be taken in a good sense, because wise men appropriately use division in every disputable proposition, since division is necessary for the knowledge of truth. Therefore, because that hour mentioned by the Lord has not yet come, when they shall worship the Father neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem, the mountain of the Samaritans is to be avoided, and in the meantime, God is to be worshipped in Sion, where Jerusalem is; which city of Jerusalem is called by Christ the city of the great King. But what other city will be the city of the great King, and the true Jerusalem, if not the Church built of living stones, where there is a holy priesthood, where spiritual sacrifices are offered to God by spiritual persons, and by those who have understood the spiritual law? ^B For when that fullness of time shall have arrived, when one shall be no longer in the flesh but in the spirit, and no longer in figure but entirely in truth, and so instructed that he makes himself like those worshippers whom God seeks, then it is not to be thought that true adoration and the perfect worship of God will be perfected in Jerusalem.

14. But it is written twice: "The hour comes," but in the first instance, the evangelist did not add, "and now is"; in the second, he says, "but the hour comes, and now is." And, in my opinion, the first reading declares that future adoration outside of bodies, on account of its perfection; the second declares the progress of those who are perfected in this life, as far as human nature allows. Wherefore, it is permitted to worship the Father in spirit and in truth, when not only "the hour comes," but also "the hour comes and now is," and when we are thought to be in Jerusalem on account of those who have attained only that far. When therefore it is written: ^D "The hour comes, and now is," it is no longer said: "Neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem shall you worship the Father," just as it was said where "The hour comes" is recorded without this addition "and now is." Nevertheless, the Samaritan woman holds a false opinion, just as when she supposed Jacob’s fountain to be a well. For there she says: "Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well, and himself drank from it, and his sons, and his cattle?" But here she says: "Our fathers worshipped in this mountain."

15. Furthermore, in these words, Heracleon says that the Samaritan woman honestly confessed what Jesus had said to her: "For of a prophet alone," says Heracleon,

^A "it is possible to know all things," lying on both counts; for angels are able to know such things, and even a prophet does not see all things: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part," even if we prophesy or know [as far as we can]. After this he praises the Samaritan woman, as having acted becomingly for her own nature, in that she neither lied nor outright confessed her own shame, and he says that, being persuaded that he was a prophet, she questioned him, while at the same time indicating the cause through which she had committed fornication: namely, that through ignorance of God and of the worship according to God she had neglected not only all things necessary for her life in the present, but that she was also always—in other respects—a person living in this way; for he says that she would not have come to the well which was outside the city. I do not know, however, how he thought that she was indicating the cause of her having committed fornication, or that ignorance was the cause of [her] offenses and of the worship according to God; but it seems that he improvised these things as it happened, without any plausibility. He adds to these points that, wishing to learn how and by whom she might be well-pleasing, and by worshipping God might be delivered from fornication, she says: "Our fathers worshipped in this mountain," and what follows. But what has been said is very easily refuted; for whence [is it evident] that she wishes to learn by whom she might be well-pleasing and be delivered from fornication? "The hour ^B cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father." When Heracleon seemed to have most plausibly observed in these matters that in the former [cases] it was not said to her, "Believe me, woman," but now this had been enjoined upon her, he then obscured the not-implausible observation by saying that by "mountain" is meant the devil, or his world—"since," he says, "the devil is one part of the whole of matter, and the world is the mountain of all wickedness, a desert habitation of wild beasts, which all those before the Law and the Gentiles worshipped." And by "Jerusalem" [he means] the creation, or the Creator, whom the Jews worshipped. But he also supposed a second time that the "mountain" was the creation, which the Gentiles worshipped, and Jerusalem the Creator, whom the Jews served. "You, therefore," he says, ^D "as if spiritual [beings], shall worship neither the creation, nor the Maker of the world, but the Father of truth." And he says that he [Jesus] also includes her, as already a believer and one reckoned among those who worship in truth. But we suppose that the godliness—so called—among the heterodox, which consists in an imagination of Gnostic arguments and of things thought to be lofty, is signified by the phrase "Neither in this mountain," but that the rule according to the majority of the Church—even if the perfect and holy soul shall mount higher and worship the Father more contemplatively and clearly—is through...

^A “Neither in Jerusalem shall you worship the Father.” For just as, as even the Jews themselves would acknowledge, the angels do not worship the Father in Jerusalem—worshipping the Father far better than the worship in Jerusalem—so too, those who have already attained in their disposition the status of being like the angels will not worship the Father in Jerusalem, but will do so better than those in Jerusalem, even if, for the sake of those who dwell in Jerusalem, they adapt themselves to the Jews dwelling in Jerusalem, becoming Jews so that they might win over the Jews. But let Jerusalem be understood by me ^B as I have previously explained, and likewise also the Jews. When, however, one worships neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, because the hour has come, such a person, having become a son, worships the Father with confidence; for which reason it was not said, “Neither in Jerusalem shall you worship God,” but, “Neither in Jerusalem shall you worship the Father.”

17. “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” By the little word “you,” as far as the exposition is concerned, the Samaritans are understood; but as far as the anagogy is concerned, those who in the Scriptures hold opinions different from ours. So, by the little word “we,” as far as the literal sense is concerned, the Jews are understood; but as far as the allegory is concerned, I, the Word, and those formed in my image, who possess salvation from the Jewish words. For the mystery that has been manifested now, has been manifested through the prophetic Scriptures and through the coming ^C of our Lord Jesus Christ. But observe whether Heracleon has not interpreted “you” strangely and beyond the logical sequence of the words, explaining it as meaning “You Jews and Gentiles.” For what kind of sense does it make for it to be said to the Samaritan woman, “You Jews,” or to a Samaritan woman, “You Gentiles”? But surely those who dissent from the decrees of the Church do not know that what they worship is a figment, not truth; a fable, not mysteries. He, however, who worships the Creator, especially according to the “Jew who is in secret” and the spiritual Jewish meanings, he knows what he worships. But it would be tedious now to put forward Heracleon’s sayings, which he took from the book that is inscribed the *Preaching of Peter*, and to press upon them, investigating concerning the book, whether it is genuine, or spurious, or mixed; for which ^D of the genuine, or of the apocryphal. There was an order of books which were set forth as sacred; of the kind were those which the Hebrews had carried into their Canon, and which were inside the ark. Again, there was a double order, of the disputed, or mixed, which might be admitted by some, but rejected by others, and were of doubtful authority; of the kind were the books of the Maccabees, the Wisdom of Sirach, and of Solomon, and others, which, although the Jews had not brought them into their Catalog, many nevertheless received. The other order was of those which were indeed held by everyone to be clearly fabricated and supposititious. The former division is confirmed by Jerome in the *Prologue Galeatus*, and Athanasius, or whoever may be the author of the *List of the books of Scripture*: for these men recount whatever is outside the genuine as among the apocryphal. But that three-fold order Eusebius follows in *Hist.* lib. III, cap. 25 and 31. HUETIUS.

^A and whether the book is genuine, or spurious, or mixed: for which reason we willingly defer these matters; noting only this: that the book itself teaches, as if Peter had taught, that one ought not to worship according to the manner of the Gentiles, who favor the things of matter, and serve woods and stones; nor to worship the Divine according to the manner of the Jews; since even they, though they alone fancy they have knowledge of God, are ignorant of Him, worshipping angels, and the month, and the moon.

^B (50) *According to the Gentiles.* So the Bodleian codex, optimally; the Royal, corruptly, *to cast down*.

(51) *Worshipping angels, and the month, and the moon.* Since in the Old Law it is often read that an angel performed the commands of God, and often spoke as if in the person of God, there has hence been various disputation among the Jews as to whether he were God or an angel. The Sadducees admitted no angels, as it is in Acts xxiii, 8. The Pharisees acknowledged them, being the leaders and arbiters of religion among them. But since the men of this sect were greatly devoted to superstitions, they easily fell into the state of offering to angels a worship that is harmful and forbidden. And this heresy flourished among the Phrygians in the times of Paul, as is understood from his Epistle to the Colossians ch. II, v. 18. But it was also condemned much later in the Laodicean synod. Yet with what worship the Jews venerated the Moon and the Month (*Mēn*) is not easy to state. Isaiah ch. LXV, v. 11, addresses them thus: “And you, who have forsaken the Lord, who have forgotten my holy mountain, who set a table for Gad, and fill a libation for Meni.” Gad is "good fortune," as Jerome rightly understood. It is taken thus in Genesis xxx, 11. Now the most ancient Chaldeans and Egyptian astrologers ascribed the fortunes of all things to the stars, and indeed attributed the fortune of the Moon to the Moon, just as the fortune of the Daemon to the Sun; and they supposed that things pertaining to the soul were a care to the former, and bodily things to the latter. Vettius Valens, book IV of the *Anthologies*, cap. 5, which is *On the division of times according to fortune and the Daemon*, teaches that the fortune of Fortune and the Daemon signifies the Sun and the Moon: that the Moon is indeed Fortune, holding power over body and spirit; but the Sun is the Mind and the Daemon, inciting and moving souls to the performing of actions. Selden, in his book *De dis Syris*, synt. 1, cap. 1, demonstrates this same thing by other testimonies, taken both from Macrobius and from that same Valens. Therefore, that which Isaiah says, that the Jews worship Gad, that is, Fortune, is explained as the Moon by the author of the book whom Origen cites, which is also called Fortune. It follows in Isaiah, “and fill a libation for Meni.” That is what is explained by Origen as *worshipping the month*. Commentators sweat here to no purpose; but most agree on this, that the word *Meni* signifies either all the planets, or one of the planets, which some conjecture to be Mercury. But to me it seems probable that the Sun, which is mind, and the Daemon, or Genius, is signified by the word *Meni*, from the origin *manah*, which is "to count," because the Sun presides over the numbering and dividing of times. From this, the word *mēn*, "month," flowed, for the same reason. But the Jews were inclined toward the worship of the Sun and Moon, even from ancient times, as is gathered from Deuteronomy iv, 19: “Lest perhaps, raising your eyes to heaven, you see the Sun and Moon, and all the stars of heaven, and being deceived by error, you worship them”; and Job xxxi, 26, 27: “If I saw the Sun when it shone, and the Moon walking clearly. And my heart rejoiced in secret, and I kissed my hand with my mouth.” And this idolatry was propagated even to Josiah, concerning whom it is written in IV Kings xxiii, 11: “He also took away the horses which the kings of Judah had given to the Sun, at the entrance of the temple of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathamelec the eunuch, who was in the Pharurim: and he burned the chariots of the Sun with fire.” In Ezekiel viii, 16, the Lord complains that twenty-five Israelites had their backs against the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east, and worshipped the rising sun. From these it is rendered probable that Isaiah ^C was not, as if accusing the Jews of the worship of Fortune—that is, of the Moon—but was rebuking the religion of the Sun, to which they were much more devoted. Furthermore, the Seventy Elders explained his words thus: *Preparing a table for fortune, and filling a mixture for the daemon.* For Jerome in Isaiah lxv, 11, says they rendered it thus: “Preparing a table for Fortune, and filling a cup for the Daemon;” and shortly after: “And what the Seventy translated as *to the Daemon*, that is, to the *Daimon*, has in the Hebrew *Meni*.” Whence it is manifest that the reading of this passage in the Vulgate is corrupt: *Preparing a table for the Daemon, and filling a mixture for Fortune*. “Therefore *Meni*, according to the Seventy, is *Daimonion* (a daemon). And yet the fortune of the Daemon, or Genius, in whose tutelage everyone lives as he is born, as Censorinus says ch. 3, and the natal companion who tempers the star, as Horace says lib. II, epist. 2, was attributed to the Sun by the ancients, the masters of astronomical discipline, as I have said: and the Sun himself was called a Daemon. Macrobius, lib. *Saturn.*, c. 19: *The Egyptians provide an argument even for the birth of men, which is called genesis, recalling that four presiding gods are present to a man being born, δαίμονα (daemon), τύχην (fortune), ἔρωτα (love), ἀνάγκην (necessity), and they wish the two prior ones to be understood as the Sun and Moon; because the Sun, the author of spirit, heat, and light, is the begetter and guardian of human life, and therefore is believed to be the Daemon of the newborn, that is, God; the Moon is Fortune, because she is the president of bodies, which are tossed by the variety of chance.* Firmicus lib. IV, cap. 11: *We infer this definition of the Daemon, which we have for that reason added to this book, because* ^D he demonstrated that this was the station of the Sun in a similar manner, Abraham. But just as the prophet expressed the fortune attributed to the Moon as Fortune, so to signify the Sun, he marked the fortune attributed to the Sun as the Daemon, namely, or *Meni*. From the Hebrew *Meni* came the Greek *mēn*, Daemon or Genius, which is also the Sun. Whence *mēnēs*, in the Aeolic dialect *mānes*, hence the Latin *Manes*, who are also Genii. Servius on VI *Aeneid*, v. 743: *Therefore he calls the Manes Genii, whom we obtain with life.* But they are not so called from *manis*, which is "good," which the same Servius writes in the first *Aeneid*. Hence *Mēn*, *Mēnōdōros*, and conversely *Mēnās*. That name belonged to a Patriarch of Constantinople, to whom the famous letter of Justinian is extant, not, as is commonly written, *Mennas*. Thus *Apollōs* contracted, instead of *Apollōdōros*, thus *Hermās* for *Hermōdōros*; thus *Theudās* Acts v, 36 and in Josephus, instead of *Theodōros*: thus *Olympās* Rom. xvi, 15, instead of *Olympiodōros*. Hence also *mēnes*, months, which the Sun determines by its courses, as if there were different Suns, and the Sun, for example, of January is different from the Sun of June. Our conjecture is completely confirmed by Strabo lib. XII, when he says that in Cabira, which is the chief city of Armenia, there is *the holy place of Men Pharnaces*, as it is called, a temple which is called of *Men Pharnaces*, so religiously worshipped, *that they made it the oath which is called royal, the fortune of the king, and Men Pharnaces*, so that they wished it to be held in place of the oath which is called royal, the fortune of the king, and Men Pharnaces. And yet that temple was also consecrated to the Moon: *“There is also this holy place of the Moon, just as the one in the Albani and the one in Phrygia; this one of Men in the place of the same name; and that of Ascaeus which is near Antioch in Pisidia, and the one in the country of the Antiochians.”* And there is this temple of the Moon, just as that which is in the Albani, and that which is in Phrygia, and that

which ^A is in the place of the same name, and that which is in the land of the Antiochians. But they worship gods, the Sun, and Zeus, and the Moon; but especially the Moon. And its temple is near Iberia. “Or even, as it seemed to some, saying: They swear by the daemon of the Roman emperor, those who swear by his fortune. The so-called fortune of the emperor is a daemon.”

227 It is necessary to inquire, as regards the truth, for whom the bodily worship was done by the Jews. That it was set before them to offer sacrifices to the Creator of all this is clear; but it is worth seeing what that is ^B which is written in the Acts of the Apostles: “But God turned, and delivered them to worship the host of heaven.” I do not know how, when the Savior openly says that salvation is from the Jews, the heterodox deny the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of the Jews. Moreover, if the Savior fulfills the law, and that those things which are written in the prophets might be fulfilled, these and those things come to pass at the time of the Lord's advent, how is it not clear in what manner salvation is from the Jews? For the same is the God of Jews and Gentiles: “Since one is God, who shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith; for we do not destroy the law through faith, but we establish the law through it.”

^C Menis, which is in the place of the same name: and that Ascaei at Antioch, which is by Pisidia, and that which is in the region of the Antiochians. Strabo discourses concerning that temple which is in the Albani in book XI. In the end of the book, he writes thus concerning the Phrygian temple of Menis: “Between Laodicea and Carura there is a temple, which is called Menis Cari.” Athenaeus, in book XII, calls a certain village of Phrygia the village of Men, where, indeed, the temple of Menis is, if I can guess at all. But concerning the temple of Ascaei, Strabo says these things in the same book, XII: “There was, however, there a priesthood of Menis Ascaei.” The interpreters have understood nothing of these places. You see that temple, which was of the Cabiri, to have been consecrated to Meni and the Moon. And yet the formula of the oath taken from it expresses the Fortune of the king, whose lot was ascribed to the Moon; and it is, if I rightly understand, the Genius, or daemon of Pharnaces, whose lot pertained to the Sun. That temple of the Albani, likewise, and that of Ascaei, and the other Phrygian one, had been dedicated not only to Meni, but also to the Moon: ^D for these words of Strabo cannot be understood otherwise: “Concerning the Albani, Strabo says thus in book XI: ‘They worship gods, the Sun, and Jupiter, and the Moon; but the Moon especially.’ And its temple is near Iberia.” He says that they venerate the Sun and the Moon, whose temple of Meni and the Moon he had placed elsewhere. Truly, the Sun is this Men. Therefore, that temple among the Armenians had been consecrated to the Genius and the Fortune of Pharnaces. Thus it was the custom for the Romans to swear by the Genius of the prince, and also by his Fortune, which itself was also considered to be a daemon: Origen, book VIII against Celsus: “But the Genius was more frequently called by the name of a daemon.” Concerning Genius and Fortune, Cebes writes elegantly in the Tablet. You may often find them worshipped together, and appeased by the same religions. Many marbles may be seen in Gruter erected and inscribed in honor of both. That Armenian temple could also be called consecrated to the Sun and the Moon, not absolutely, but in as much as the Sun and Moon presided over the Genius and Fortune of Pharnaces. Furthermore, the same Strabo broadcast in the first book that the Armenians had much in common with the Syrians in language and customs. What if we should say that Armenia took its name from the same Mene? Jeremiah, chap. LI, 57, writes these things: “Declare against her (Babylon) with the kings of Ararat, Menni, and Ascenez.” The LXX of the Sixtine edition: [alt-version omitted] Read: where the Hebrew is rendered as if it were not a proper name. The Arab also erred. But the Chaldean paraphrast renders Menni as *Minni*, which word is otherwise written, *Minni*: both erroneously; for it should be written Mount Meni, as the Baal Aruch, Jarchi, Kimchi, and other Hebrew authorities have it, who also expound it as “Armenia.” Therefore, that it took its name from Menni, the most excellent man Samuel Bochart learnedly and clearly shows in *Phaleg*, book I, chap. 5. Indeed, I would have considered Mount Meni to be nothing else than the mountain consecrated to that God who is called by Isaiah, and by Strabo and the author of the *Preaching of Peter*, which Origen praises. Furthermore, Pythagoras forbade the eating of a white cock, because it was sacred to Meni, that is, to the Sun, as the Pythagoreans expound. Iamblichus, in his book *On the Life of Pythagoras*, after he said that he deemed the white cock to be consecrated to Meni; he subjoins in another place of the same book: “He considered the cock to be sacred to the Sun.” Laertius, in the *Life* of the same man, placed this among his apothegms: “By no means touch a white cock, because it is sacred to Meni and a suppliant; for it signifies the hours.” Suidas explains this as sacred to the Sun. It can also be estimated from the aforesaid that *Meneth*, a certain god worshiped by the Arabs, of whom mention is made in the Koran, Surah 63, is this same Meni. Indeed, most of the nations of Asia seem to have received the worship of the Sun and the Moon from the Persians. Strabo bears witness in book XI and XV that they placed temples in Hyrcania and Cappadocia, which he calls the *Anaitidos* and *Amanou*. Erudite men think this to be the Sun, and that the Moon. Certainly in the word *Amanos* you may recognize traces of the word *Menis*. Herodotus relates in book I, c. 132, that it was the custom for the Persians to set out banquets for the gods. Isaiah, c. LXV, 7, 11, reproaches the Jews for doing the same to Fortune. And it was also broadcast by Herodotus in book I, cap. 133, that the Persians celebrated their birthday with solemn banquets. Indeed, perhaps they venerated the Sun or Genius thus as the protector of the birth of all men.

^A 18. "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth." Those who do not even profess to adore the Father ought not even to be named adorers of God. But of all those who profess to adore the Maker of the world, if some are no longer in the flesh but in the spirit, for they walk in the spirit and do not fulfill the desires of the flesh, while others are not in the spirit but in the flesh and war according to the flesh, then it must be said that those are true adorers who adore the Father in spirit and not in flesh, and in truth and not in figures; but those who are not thus conditioned are not true adorers. And he who is enslaved to the letter that killeth, and has not partaken of the spirit that giveth life, nor follows the spiritual things of the Law, would not be a true adorer, nor will he adore the Father in spirit. And this same man, ^B being entirely devoted to figures and corporeal things, even when he thinks he attains them most, then he adores God in figure and not in truth, and for this reason is unable to be called a true adorer. Perhaps it is sometimes reasonably granted that even a true adorer, while adoring in spirit and truth, might perform certain things which are in figure, so that he may, by a most wise dispensation, liberate those who are enslaved to the figure from it, and lead them to the truth; just as Paul appears to have done in the case of Timothy, and perhaps also at Cenchrae, and at Jerusalem, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles. But it must be observed that true adorers adore the Father in spirit and in truth not only in the coming hour, but also in the present. But ^C those who adore in spirit, as they have received, adore in the earnest of the spirit now; but then they will adore the Father in spirit, when they have received the whole spirit. But if he who sees through a mirror does not see the truth, as is shown to those who are expert in these optical matters, and yet Paul and such as he see through a mirror now, it follows that, as he sees, so he also adores God, and he adores God through a mirror. But when the hour comes which is to follow the present one—the hour that will succeed the present—then the adoration will be in truth, face to face, and no longer seen through a mirror.

19. But Heracleon thinks that "we adore" refers to him who is in the Aeon, ^D and those who came with him; for these, he says, knew whom they adored, as they were adoring in accordance with truth. But also that "salvation is from the Jews," since he was born in Judaea, he says, and not among them; because he did not have an inclination of soul toward all of them, and because from that nation salvation went forth, and the Word to the whole world; but according to the spiritual understanding, from the Jews...

^A salvation is said to have come, since they are thought to be images of those who are in the Pleroma. But it was necessary for him and his followers to show how each one is an image of those who are in the Pleroma, so that they do not say this in voice alone, but truly believe it in their hearts. Furthermore, in explaining that saying, "to worship God in spirit and in truth," he says that former worshippers adored him in flesh and in error, and not the Father; wherefore, by the same reasoning, all who adored the Creator of the world were deceived. And Heracleon adds that they served the creature, and not him who in truth was the Creator who is Christ, "since all things were made by him, and without him was nothing made."

20. "For the Father seeks such to worship him." If the Father seeks ^B, he seeks through the Son, who came to seek and to save that which was lost, whom—purifying and instructing them by the Word and by sound doctrines—he prepares to be true worshippers. Heracleon says that that which belongs to the Father has perished in the deep matter of error, which is sought so that the Father may be worshipped by his own. If, however, he had seen the discourse concerning the loss of the sheep, and of the son who fell away from the things of his father, we might at least have accepted his explanation. But since they who follow his opinion are weaving myths, I do not know what they clearly set forth ^C concerning the lost spiritual nature, teaching us nothing certain regarding the times or ages that were before that very loss; for they are unable to clarify their own argument. For this reason, we have willingly passed them by, being content to have disputed thus far.

21. "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." Since many have uttered many things concerning God and his essence, such that some have said he is of a corporeal, subtle, and heavenly nature, others that he is incorporeal, and again others that God transcends these natures by the power and excellence of his essence, it is worth our while to see if we have grounds from the divine Scriptures to say something about the essence of God. And [here] in this place it is said that his essence is, as it were, spirit; for "God is spirit," he says; but in the Law fire is written, for it is written: "Our God is a consuming fire"; and by John, light: "For God," he says, "is light, and darkness is in him not at all." If, therefore, we understand these things more simply, ^D not inquiring anything beyond the letter, we shall have occasion to say that God is a body; yet the absurdities that follow for us by saying this are not for common people to discern, for few have discoursed upon the nature of bodies, and especially of those bodies that are governed by reason and providence.

^A Yet even while saying that the One who provides is of the same essence as those for whom He provides, they hold that He is perfect and distinct from that which is provided for. Those who wish God to be a body—not being able to contend against those who clearly and reasonably stand their ground—have accepted the absurdities occurring in their own logic. I say these things by way of excepting those who claim there is a fifth nature of bodies distinct from the elements. For if every material body has a nature of its own, existing without quality, yet is convertible, alterable, and mutable in all respects, and receives those qualities which the Creator, if He so wishes, may impose upon it, then it is necessary that God, being material, should also be convertible, alterable, and mutable. ^B And they are not ashamed to say that He is corruptible since He is a body, although—by virtue of His ruling principle—a spiritual and celestial body; yet they claim that although He is corruptible, He is not corrupted because He lacks anything that could corrupt Him. But we, because we do not see the consequences if we call Him a body, and because of the Scriptures—which speak of Him as having a certain body, such as "spirit," and "consuming fire," and "light"—do not admit that which necessarily follows from these positions.

^C But although they did not see the consequences, those who wish God to be a body admitted things that were contrary to their own reasoning. I make these comments by way of exception to those who say there is a fifth nature of bodies beyond the elements. For if every material body has by its own definition a nature that is devoid of quality, yet is convertible, alterable, and mutable in every way, and capable of receiving the qualities that the Architect of the world might wish to imprint upon it, then it is necessary that God, being material, be convertible, alterable, and mutable. And as for them, they are not ashamed to say that God is corruptible, since He is a body—though a spiritual and heavenly body, especially according to His ruling principle—and although He is corruptible, they claim that He is not corrupted because He has no one to corrupt Him. But as for us, because we do not see the consequences if we call Him a body, and because of the Scriptures... ^D

^A We shall behave unseemly, like fools, and speak contrary to clear evidence; for every fire that needs fuel is corruptible, and every spirit—if we understand "spirit" simply as being a body—admits, as far as its own nature is concerned, a change into something denser. It is time, therefore, in these matters, either to accept such absurd and blasphemous things about God while holding to the literal words, or to proceed as we do in many other cases, and examine what can be indicated and declared when God is called spirit, or fire, or light.

22. And first it must be said, that just as when we find eyes, and eyelids, and ears, and hands, and arms, and even wings, and feet written of God, we translate what is written into allegory, spurning those who attribute to God a form similar to men—and we do this justly—so also must we do the same concerning the names aforementioned. And indeed, this is clear from that which appears to us to be more in use: for "God is light," according to John, "and in Him there is no darkness at all." How we are to understand Him as light as intelligently as possible, let us examine. ^B For light is named in two ways, bodily and spiritually—that is, what is perceived by the mind, which, as the Scriptures might say, does not fall under sight, or as the Gentiles would name it, the invisible. And of bodily light, a manifest example to those who accept this Scripture is: "But to all the children of Israel there was light in all places where they dwelt." And an example of the spiritual and intelligible is in one of the Twelve: "Sow for yourselves in righteousness, reap the fruit of life, light for yourselves the light of knowledge." Likewise, darkness also shall be spoken of in two ways by proportion: the example of that which is more commonly spoken of is: "And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night"; ^C but the example of the intelligible darkness is: "The people who sat in darkness and the shadow of death, a light has risen upon them."

23. These things being so, it is worthy to see what it befits us to understand concerning God when He is called light, in whom there is no darkness: for is God light that illuminates bodily eyes, or intelligible ones, about which even the Prophet says: "Illuminate my eyes, lest I ever sleep in death"? I think it is manifest to everyone that we would by no means say that God performs the office of the sun, yielding to another the duty of illuminating the eyes of those who will not sleep in death. Therefore, God illuminates the mind of those whom He judges worthy of His own illumination. ^D

^A Since it is necessary that He who is perceived by the mind, who does not fall under sight, and who is devoid of body, should be perceived by us as an incorporeal light—lest that which is called "consuming fire," ^B or God, be thought to be a corporeal fire that consumes bodies such as wood, hay, and straw—if we can see wood, hay, and straw within ourselves, perhaps God is our fire, the one who is called "consuming fire." And indeed, it is fitting for the Lord to consume such things and disappear the worse parts. Upon this happening, I believe that pains and tribulations arise, not from any corporeal contact, but around the faculties of the mind, where the structure worthy of being consumed has been established. God is therefore called Light, the term having been taken from corporeal light to denote an invisible and incorporeal light, being called so because of His power to illuminate the intelligible eyes. He is also called "consuming fire," taking into account the fire that is corporeal and the consumer of such material.

A similar thing seems to me to be the case regarding God being called Spirit, ^C because, since we are vivified by the spirit that is around us—that which is call the breath of life—according to the middle and more commonly used form of life, I suppose that the term "Spirit" used for God has been taken from that, as He leads us to the true life. For the Spirit, according to Scripture, is said to vivify, it being evident that it does not vivify with the middle sort of life, but with the more divine one. For "the letter kills," and produces death, not that which is the separation of the soul from the body, but that death which separates the soul from God, from His Lord, and from the Holy Spirit. ^D

24. "See, therefore, lest perhaps that which is said: 'You will take away their spirit, and they will fail,' and 'You will send forth your Spirit, and they will be created, and you will renew the face of the earth,' might be better interpreted as concerning the divine Spirit, and we may suppose that he who is deprived of the divine Spirit becomes earthen; however, he who has made himself fit for the reception of it, and has received it, will be re-created and renewed.

^A "He breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul," so that we might understand spiritually both the infusion, and the breath of life, and the life of the soul. Since, moreover, the aforementioned power finds the soul of the saint like a suitable dwelling, it gives itself unto it, so that—to put it this way—it is uniquely to be thought to have been written: "I will dwell in them, and I will walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." We have need, however, of much exercise, so that, having been perfected and having our senses trained, as Paul says, we might be able to distinguish between good and evil, between true and false, and to be contemplators of intelligible things, so that we might be able, with greater diligence and in a manner more becoming to God—insofar as human nature permits—to understand how God is light, and fire, and spirit.

^B And in the third book of Kings, the event of the Spirit of the Lord that happened to Elijah suggests certain things of this sort about God; for it says: "You shall go out tomorrow, and stand before the Lord on the mountain; and behold, the Lord shall pass by, and a great and strong wind, breaking the mountains and crushing the rocks before the Lord; the Lord is not in the wind" (in other exemplars we find: "In the spirit of the Lord"); "and after the wind, a commotion; the Lord is not in the commotion; and after the commotion, fire; the Lord is not in the fire; and after the fire, a voice of a gentle breeze." And perhaps the matters in which it is necessary for us to be engaged for the sake of knowing and apprehending the Lord are declared through these words, which it would not be the time to detail now.

^C But who was it fitting for us to speak about regarding God, who He is, if not the Son? For, "No one has known the Father except the Son," so that we too, with the Son revealing Him, might know how God is Spirit, and may strive to worship God in the life-giving Spirit, and not in the letter which killeth, and to reverence Him in truth, and no longer in figures and shadows and types, just as the angels do not serve God by types and shadows concerning men, but by intelligible and heavenly things, having as a guide the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek for the salvation of those who pray and are in need, and for the sake of mystical and ineffable contemplation.

25. Indeed, regarding the words: "God is Spirit," ^D Heracleon says: "For His divine nature is immaculate, and pure, and invisible." But this, when...

^A he said these things, further taught us how God is Spirit. And the words, "Those who worship in spirit and truth must worship," he thinks he is clarifying when he says: "Worthily of Him who is worshiped spiritually, not carnally; for they themselves, being of the same nature as the Father, are spirit, who worship in truth and not in error, even as the Apostle also teaches, saying that such worship is a 'reasonable service.'" But let us consider ^B if it is not very impious to say that those who worship God in spirit are of the same essence as the unbegotten and all-blessed nature, whom Heracleon himself shortly before said had fallen, when he claimed the Samaritan woman, though she was of a spiritual nature, had committed fornication. But those who say these things do not see that everything is capable of opposites and the same things. For if the spiritual nature, being of the same essence as the unbegotten one, received the act of fornication, then unholy, godless, and impious consequences follow for those who argue thus about God; nor is it even safe to imagine these things about each other. ^C We, obeying the Savior who says, "The Father who sent me is greater than I," and who for this reason held that the title "good"—which is the authoritative, true, and perfect title—could not be offered to Himself, but referred it gratefully to the Father with a rebuke to one who wished to over-glorify the Son, say that the Savior excels all created beings, not by comparison, but by an exceeding excellence, and that the Holy Spirit is excelled ^D by the Father as much or even more than He Himself and the Holy Spirit excel the rest—and not merely any ordinary beings; for how much glory belongs to one who excels thrones, lordships, principalities, powers, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the world to come.

and in addition to these, holy angels, and spirits, and just souls... even to speak of. ^A Yet even so, though he excels such and so great beings in essence, and intercession, and power, and divinity (for he is the living Word), and wisdom, he is in no respect to be compared with the Father. For he is the image of His goodness, and the brightness, not of God, but of His glory, and of His eternal light; and a ray, not of the Father, but of His power; and a pure emanation of His almighty glory, and an unspotted mirror of His activity, through which mirror Paul and Peter and those like them see God, as He says: “He who has seen me has seen the Father who sent me.”

26. ^B *The woman says to him: I know that the Messiah is coming; when he comes, he will tell us all things.* It is worth seeing how the Samaritan woman, accepting nothing more than the five books of Moses, awaits the coming of Christ as if it were announced by the Law alone. And it is indeed likely that she hoped for the coming of this [Christ] from the blessing which Jacob gave to Judah, saying: ^C “Judah, your brethren shall praise you; your hands shall be upon the neck of your enemies; your father's sons shall bow down to you”; and after a little: “A ruler shall not fail from Judah, and a leader from his loins, until there come the things stored up for him, and he is the expectation of the nations.” Furthermore, it is likely that the Samaritans hoped for the same thing from the prophecies of Balaam, and especially from this one: “A man shall go forth from his seed, and shall be lord over many nations, and the kingdom of Gog shall be exalted, and his kingdom shall increase. God led him out of Egypt, as the glory of a unicorn is his; he shall eat the nations of his enemies, and shall strip their fat of its marrow, and shall smite the enemy with his darts; he lay down, he rested as a lion, and as a lion's cub; who shall stir him up? They who bless you shall be blessed, and they who curse you shall be cursed.” ^D And in what follows, Balaam himself also says: “I will show to them, and not now; I bless, and he does not draw near; a star shall rise out of Jacob, and a man shall rise out of Israel, and he shall bruise the leaders of Moab, and shall plunder all the sons of Seth; and Edom shall be an inheritance, and Esau his enemy shall be an inheritance, and Israel has acted in strength, and one shall rise out of Jacob, and destroy him who is saved from the city.” You will consider whether by chance it might also please the Samaritans that the blessing of Moses to Judah should be referred to Christ, which reads thus: “Hear, O Lord, the voice of Judah, and to

his people thou shalt come; his hands shall judge for him, and thou shalt be a helper against his enemies.” ^A Since the Samaritans boast of Joseph as their patriarch, I consider whether perhaps some might also accept the blessing of Jacob upon Joseph, and the blessing of Moses, as being spoken of the coming of Christ. Anyone who wishes may take the actual words from the Scripture itself. But the Savior Himself, knowing that Moses had written many things by way of prophecy concerning Christ, says to the Jews: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.” ^B There are, therefore, a great many things written in the Law that refer typically and enigmatically to Christ; but, for the present, I see no others clearer and more manifest than these. Messias, indeed, is called in the Hebrew tongue, which the Seventy have interpreted as Christ; but Aquilas, as Anointed.

27. It must also be considered: “When he comes, he will tell us all things,” whether she said this to the Samaritan woman from tradition or from the Law. One must not, however, be ignorant that, just as Jesus rose up from the Jews, not only calling Himself the Christ but also proving it, ^C so also a certain Dositheus arose from the Samaritans and claimed himself to be the prophesied Christ, from whom even until now there are the Dositheans, who carry the books of Dositheus and recount certain myths about him, as if he did not taste death, but is living somewhere in this life. And these things are as regards the literal sense. But that heterodox woman, too, at the well of Jacob—which she supposed was a spring—suspecting in her mind that he whom she looked for was a more perfect (Word), naming this one Christ, said: “When he comes, he will announce to us all things,” while the One present with her, who was also expected and hoped for, said: “I am he who speaks to you.” See also what Heracleon says; for he says: ^D “The Church was expecting Christ, and was persuaded about him that he alone knows all things.”

28. “And his disciples came, and they marvelled that he was speaking with a woman; yet no one said: What do you seek, or why do you speak with her?” We must inquire where Christ has evangelized Himself, and compare these passages among themselves, just as: “I am he who bears witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me,” and in the passage: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me,” and whether anything similar to these has been said.

^A Something similar to this is said in one of the Gospels. ^A Yet, so far as the passage is concerned, we learn from it and from this point that He is meek and humble in heart, not proudly disdaining to discuss such important matters with a woman drawing water, who had come out of the city due to extreme poverty and was laboring to draw water. The disciples, too, as they arrived, were amazed; having previously foreseen the magnitude of the divinity in Him, they marveled at how one so great was speaking with a woman. But we, led by arrogance and pride, despise those of lowlier estate, forgetting that the text “Let us make man according to our image and likeness” ^B pertains individually to every human being, and not remembering Him who fashions us in the womb, and who fashions the hearts of all men one by one, and who understands all their works. ^B We do not recognize that God is the helper of the lowly and the small, the protector of the weak, the succor of the despairing, and the savior of those who are considered lost. He uses this woman as an apostle to those who were in the city, inflaming her so much with His words that the woman, having left her water jar, went away into the city and said to the people: “Come, see a man who told me all that I have done; can this be the Christ?” When they came out of the city and were coming to Him, ^C the Word showed Himself most clearly—not failing in this at that time—so that the disciples, having arrived, marveled that even this woman, though a female and someone easily deceived, had been deemed worthy to receive the discourse of the Word. ^C Yet, being well persuaded that all things are done correctly by the Word, the disciples did not rebuke Jesus, nor did they raise doubts about His discussion with the Samaritan woman or her conversation with Jesus. Perhaps they were even thunderstruck at the great kindness of the Word, condescending to a soul that despised Zion and placed its hope in the mountain of Samaria, for which reason it is written: “They marveled that He was speaking with a woman.” And Heracleon, regarding the words “I am He who speaks to you,” says that since the Samaritan woman was persuaded about Christ, that when He came He would announce all things to her, Jesus said these words: “Know that He whom you expect ^D [is I, who speak to you];” and when He had confessed Himself to be the one who was expected as the coming one, Heracleon says: “The disciples came to Him, for whose sake He had come into Samaria.” But in what way had He come into Samaria for the sake of the disciples, who had been with Him before? 29. “The woman left her water jar, and went away into the city, and says to the people: Come, see a man who told me all that I have done; can this be the Christ?”

^A I do not think that the Evangelist has recorded the details concerning the leaving of the water jar, which the woman left behind when she went away to the city, without a purpose. For, as far as the literal text is concerned, it reveals a greater eagerness on the part of the Samaritan woman in leaving the water jar, as she was not so anxious about a bodily and humbler task as she was about the benefit of many people. For she was moved with great kindness to desire to announce Christ to her fellow citizens, bearing witness to Him who had told her everything she had done. She invites them, moreover, to see a man who possesses a reason and a discourse far superior to that of a man; for that which was visible to His eyes was a man. It is therefore necessary for us, too, forgetting the more bodily things and letting them go, to hasten to share with others the benefit of which we have partaken; for to this the Evangelist invites the prudent reader by recording the praise of the woman.

However, regarding the spiritual interpretation, one must consider what the water jar is, which the Samaritan woman leaves behind having in a way received the words of Jesus. And perhaps she sets aside the vessel of that which was highly esteemed—on account of the depth of the water, the teaching—by now disparaging those things which she formerly valued, in favor of Him who is far superior to the water jar, having received from the water that had already become in her a spring of water leaping up to eternal life. For how, had she not partaken of this water, would she have been able, in her kindness, to proclaim Christ to the citizens, marveling at Him who told her all that she had done, if she had not partaken of the saving water through the words she had heard? ^B Rebecca, too, having a water jar on her shoulders, before the servant of Abraham had finished speaking in his mind, was coming out, a virgin beautiful in appearance; and since she did not draw water in the same way as the Samaritan woman, she descends to the spring and fills the water jar, and as she was ascending, the servant of Abraham runs to meet her and said, “Give me a little water to drink from your jar.” For because he was the servant of Abraham, he was content to take even a little water from the jar of Rebecca; and Rebecca hastened and took the water jar down onto her arm and gave him a drink until he ceased from drinking. Since, therefore, the water jar of Rebecca was praiseworthy, it is not left behind by her, ^C but the Samaritan woman’s water jar, it being the sixth hour, is left behind. Here, indeed, a woman announces Christ to the Samaritans; but at the end of the Gospels, the woman who saw Him before everyone else relates even the resurrection of the Savior to the apostles. But neither

^A to her, as one who has announced the perfection of faith, are thanks given by the Samaritans, who say: "No longer do we believe because of your word; for we have heard and known that this is truly the Savior of the world." Nor is she granted the first fruits of touching Christ, he saying to her: "Do not touch me," for Thomas was about to hear: "Bring your finger here, and see my hands, and bring your hand, and place it into my side." All things which the woman did—the association with the five husbands, and after them the condescension to the sixth, who was not a lawful husband—were signs; having denied him, and having left behind her water-jar, she rests honorably in the seventh, ^B bringing benefit also to those who, imbued with the same doctrines, inhabited the city—that is, the framing of words which are not right and sound, the same as that of the woman; which was also the cause that they should go out of the city and come to Jesus. But with great observation the Samaritans in the following verses ask Jesus, not that he should remain in the city, but *among them*; this is, that he should be in their governing principle [the most excellent part of the soul]: for perhaps Jesus could not remain in their city, since they themselves had also gone out from the city, acting for the best, and had come to him. That indeed matters of this sort are indicated most accurately, giving us causes through the evangelist for an anagogical sense, that is, for a more sublime understanding, is to be judged from these words. For it is written first: ^C "They went out from the city, and were coming to him," and after a few words: "But from that city many of the Samaritans believed in him because of the word of the woman who testified, saying, 'He told me all things that I did.' So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to remain among them." Therefore, when they had first come to him from the city, the Samaritans also came to him a second time, while he was still at the fountain of Jacob (for he does not appear to have moved from there), and asked him to remain among them. But it is not written after this that he entered into the city, but "He remained there two days." And even in the following verses it is not said: "But after the two days" he went out from the city, but "And he went out from there"; for as far as the spiritual meaning is concerned, all the economy of benefit for the Samaritans was accomplished at the fountain of Jacob.

^D 50. Now Heracleon assumes the water-jar to be a disposition and a notion, and also of the power which is from the Savior; which, he says, "leaving with him"—that is, having with the Savior such a vessel, in which she had come to receive the living water—she turned back into the world, announcing with her voice the presence and arrival of Christ; for through the Spirit and by the Spirit the soul is led to the Savior.

^A Consider, then, if this water jar, which is completely abandoned, can be worthy of praise. "For the woman," he says, "left her water jar," for it is not added that she left it with the Savior. But how is it not absurd that she, having deserted the disposition and notion that is receptive of life and of the power flowing from the Savior—the very vessel in which she had come to receive the living water—would have gone back into the world without these things to evangelize the advent and presence of Christ with her voice? And how is it that even this spiritual woman, after so many discourses, is not clearly persuaded about Christ, but says, "Is this the Christ?" And that statement: "They went out from the city," he expounded instead of it being based on their former, worldly conduct, "and they came," he says, "through faith to the Savior." But it must be answered to him [the objector]: How does he ^B remain with them for the two days? For he did not observe that we have proposed that it is not written that he had remained for two days in the city (26).

51. "In the meanwhile the disciples were asking him," saying: "Rabbi, eat." After the economy concerning the drink and the doctrine of the difference of the waters, it was sequential that those things pertaining to food should also be recorded. Now the Samaritan woman, being requested to give a drink because of her perplexities (25), and as if through him who had made the request (for she had neither the means to give Jesus a drink worthy of him), wondered if even he, by requesting her who had been asked to offer, wished to benefit her through this drink she had given. It was already fitting..... from the Samaritan woman. But the disciples..... having gone off into the city, so that they might buy food, that is, having found suitable food in the form of certain discourses adapted to those of different beliefs,..... ^C say to him: "Eat," deeming that time suitable for him to eat, during which the woman had sought out the city and the Samaritans were about to come to him; for they would not have set food before him in front of any stranger. Perhaps the Samaritan woman would have been disturbed if she had seen the disciples wanting to set before the Master the provisions they had either bought in Samaria or could plausibly have bought; nor would they have rightfully said in front of the Samaritans, who wished to leave their own city: "Rabbi, eat." Therefore, it is well added: "In the meanwhile the disciples were asking him, saying: Rabbi, eat." But why "they were asking him," and not "they were saying to him," is worth considering; for it would have been written more simply: "In the meanwhile the disciples were saying to him: Rabbi, eat." And both to ask that he might eat, and to entreat him, and to beg, perhaps indicates something before the examination, and sometimes also after the examination. And see, indeed, ^D lest perhaps the disciples were wary lest..... the Word..... by its own properties.

receive nourishment, or be strengthened by food, that they might offer to eat those things which they find. For the disciples always desire to nourish the Word, so that, being strengthened, and invigorated, and energized, he might remain longer with those who nourish him, in turn nourishing those who set food before him. For this reason he says that he is standing at the door and knocking, so that if anyone opens the door, he may enter to him and dine with him, so that later the diner might be able, in turn, to be feasted by the Word who had dined at the man’s house.

52. Now Heracleon says that the disciples wished to share with Jesus what they had bought and brought from Samaria. He mentions these things, that some ^B... five foolish virgins... from the Bridegroom. But how, I ask... to have the same things... to whom, when the foolish virgins were shut out, it is worth seeing [an accusation] that contains the disciples sleeping together with the foolish virgins. But this also has a dissimilarity from light to food, and from drink to eating... to reproach the interpretation, although he ought to have made clear what he says, and to teach at greater length, confirming his own interpretation.

53. But he said to them: "I have food to eat, which you do not know." That which is self-sufficient does not need food; therefore, that which is in need of food is not self-sufficient. Hence it is clear that he who eats, eats not because he is not in need, but because he is in need and greatly in need. And bodies, indeed, because they are by nature fluid, ^C are nourished by food that fills the place of those things which flow away; but those things which are more excellent than the body itself are nourished by incorporeal intelligences, and by healthy discourses and actions—not that they would be dissolved into non-being if they were not nourished; for these bodies that are not fed are not dissolved into non-being, but they lose their being such as they are if they are not nourished by such things as are of a nature more excellent than the bodies. But just as bodies that need food are not nourished by those foods that proceed from qualities, nor does the same quantity of food suffice for all, so also we must understand regarding those things which are better and more excellent than bodies. For among these, some need more abundant food, and some less, as those that do not take the same measure; nor does the same quality of discourses and concepts in contemplation—which are actions fitting to these—suit all souls. But, in fact, even garden herbs and solid food do not at the same time nourish those who are to receive some fruit from them; for the newborn infants, as Peter says, desire the rational, guileless milk; and let him also desire it, if anyone has the infancy of the Corinthians, to whom Paul says: ^D "I fed you with milk, not with food." But the one who is weak, on account of not believing, let him eat herbs. And Paul teaches this also, saying: "One believes that he may eat all things; but the one who is weak eats herbs."

^A And surely it is "better sometimes to eat herbs with friendship and charity, than a fatted calf with hatred." But "solid food is for the perfect, for those who by habit have exercised their senses for the discernment of good and evil." There is also a certain deadly food, which we learn from the fourth book of Kings, when some say to Elisha: "Death is in the pot, O man of God." And there is a certain spiritual, grassy food for those souls that are more irrational, and another of hay or straw, which is signified by those words of the Psalmist: "The Lord pastures me, and nothing shall be lacking to me; in a place of green herb he has made me to lie down; he has nourished me upon water of restoration." And Isaiah also says: "And the lion shall eat straw like an ox." But they also place hay before the beasts in the house of Rebecca, the servant of Abraham. But if one should be more rational, and for that reason also an intelligible man, he also eats intelligible bread, as it is written in the Psalms: "Bread strengthens man's heart," and no one else is gladdened by the intelligible wine but man: "For wine gladdens the heart of man." But we must ascend in our discourse from the irrational animals and from men up to the angels themselves, since they also are nourished, not being altogether self-sufficient. ^B Therefore "man ate the bread of angels," and blessed indeed is Abraham, who was able to set before those three who appeared to him [the] unleavened cakes baked in the ashes.

54. But let the discourse now return to the point from which it flowed, namely to the sermon concerning Christ's food, which the disciples did not then know; for Jesus speaks the truth when he says: "I have food to eat which you do not know." For what Jesus was doing—performing the will of the Father by whom he had been sent, and fulfilling his work—this the disciples did not know. But that the saying, "I have food to eat which you do not know," may be understood more clearly, let Paul also speak to the Corinthians who had need of milk and not of solid food, and who were being fed with milk and not with solid food, because they were not yet able to partake of food: ^C [to these, I say, let Paul speak:] "I have food to eat which you do not know." And certainly, he who is superior to the inferior, and who is able to see things which those who are unable to see the same things as the more excellent cannot see, will always say: "I have food to eat which you do not know." And it is not at all absurd to say that not only men and angels have need of intelligible foods, but even the Christ of God ^D; for he himself too, so to speak, is prepared [by] the Father, who alone is needy of nothing and is self-sufficient unto himself. But he takes the foods...

from the disciples of Jesus, who are commanded to place them before the crowds; but the disciples of Jesus take them from Jesus himself, though 36 sometimes also from holy angels. But the Son of God alone receives his foods from the Father, without any intermediary. And it would not be absurd to say that the Holy Spirit is also nourished; one must, however, seek for a passage of Scripture that suggests this to us. For the whole mystery of the calling and election is food in the great supper: for "A man," he says, "made a great supper, and at the time of the supper sent to call the invited"; and we must re-read all the parables from the Gospels that speak of suppers. ^B Indeed, we also have promises from Isaiah of eating and drinking, where he says: "Behold, those who serve me shall eat, but you shall hunger; behold, those who serve me shall drink, but you shall thirst." Furthermore, in Genesis, God places man in the paradise of delight, giving him laws to eat certain things and not to eat others; and man would have remained immortal if he had eaten of every tree in paradise, except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. See also what is said in the twenty-first Psalm regarding those who worship because they have eaten: "For they ate," he says, "and all the fat ones of the earth worshipped"; hence, "The Lord will by no means starve a righteous soul; but when we become unjust, he will send ^C a famine upon the earth, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the word of God." As much, therefore, as we progress, we shall eat better and more things, until perhaps we arrive at eating the same food as the Son of God, which at the present time the disciples do not know. Heracleon said nothing regarding this passage.

35. "The disciples were saying to one another, 'Has anyone brought him anything to eat?'" Even if Heracleon supposes these things to be said carnally by the disciples, as though they were still creeping on the ground and imitating the Samaritan woman who said, "You have no bucket, and the well is deep," it is proper for us to observe whether the disciples, perhaps seeing something more divine, say to one another, "Has anyone brought him anything to eat?" For perhaps they were suspecting that some angelic power had brought him something to eat; ^D and it is likely that they were being taught for this reason, that the food he had to eat was greater, which was to do the will of him who sent him, and to complete his work.

36. "Jesus says to them: My food is that I should do the will of him who sent me, and complete his work." It is a becoming food for the Son of God, when he becomes a performer of the Father’s

^A will, acting that volition within himself, which was also in the Father, so that the will of God is in the will of the Son, without any variation from the will of the Father, to the end that there are no longer two wills, but one will (39); which one will was the cause of his saying, "I and the Father are one." And for this reason, he who has seen him has seen the Son, and has seen also him who sent him. And it is indeed more fitting for us to understand that the Son conforms to the manner of the paternal will, from which will even those things which are outside of the one who wills were excellently made, than for us to be overly curious and imagine the doing of the will of him who sent him to consist in doing certain things which are external. For that thing (I speak of that which is outside the one who wills), being done apart from the aforementioned will, is not the whole will of the Father; but everything that is the will of the Father, being done through the Son—since the volition of God, being in the Son, effects those things which the will of God desires—only the Son causes to contain the ^B whole will of the Father; for which reason he is also his image. Something must also be considered concerning the Holy Spirit. For the rest of the holy ones will do nothing against the will of God, and everything which they do, they will do according to the will of God, yet it does not suffice for them to be fashioned according to the whole will. And this holy one compared to that holy one will contain more, or greater, or more or less, in comparison to another, departing from the paternal will, and again there will be something else according to that which proceeds differently (42). But he who said, "My food is that I should do the will of God who sent me," will do all and the whole of the will of God. After this, then, he says graciously concerning God: "The Son can do nothing from himself, unless he see the Father doing something; for whatever the Father may do, these things also the Son does likewise; the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things which he himself does." And perhaps for this reason he is ^C the image of the invisible God; for indeed the will which is in him is an image of the first will, and the divinity which is in him is an image of the true divinity; and, being also the image of the goodness of the Father, he says: "Why do you call me good?" And indeed this will is the food of the Son, and his own proper food, because it is the will. Furthermore, that the will pertains to the disposition [of the Father] is declared by the context which follows, saying in the second place that after the execution of the will, the work of God is perfected.

37. On the phrase: "I shall complete his work"

or while plowing the earth, to say that they are completing the work of Him who had taken them for the performance of some work, while they were completing that for the sake of which they had been taken. Another, however, will say that if the work of God is perfected by Christ, it is clear that this was imperfect before it was perfected. How then was that which is the work of God imperfect? And ^A how is the work of God perfected by Him who said, "The Father 47 who sent me is greater than I"? But the perfection of the work was the perfection of the rational nature; for it was to this nature, which is endowed with reason, that the Word of God, having become flesh, came in order to make it perfect when it was imperfect. Was the work, then, created imperfect, and is the Saviour sent to perfect that which is imperfect? And how is it not absurd if we say that the Father was the author of an imperfect thing, but the Saviour perfected that which was created imperfect? Therefore, in my judgment, ^B some deeper mystery is hidden in this passage; for perhaps that which is capable of reason was not altogether imperfect at the time it was placed in paradise. For how could the God of all have placed something altogether imperfect in paradise to work it and keep it? For he who is able to work the tree of life, and all things that God planted, and which afterward sprang up, could not reasonably be called imperfect. Might it not be that, being perfect, he became imperfect through disobedience, and needed Him who would perfect him from that imperfection? And for this reason the Saviour was sent, first indeed that He might do the will of Him who sent Him, having become a worker of His even here, and second, that He might perfect the work of God, and that each one, having been perfected, might be accustomed ^C to solid food and have intimacy with wisdom. "For solid food is for the perfect, those who by habit have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil"; and He who speaks wisdom says, "But we speak wisdom among the perfect." And when each of us, who are the work of God, shall have been perfected by Jesus, he will say: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness." Nor did man alone fall, when he was perfect, to the imperfect, ^D but also the sons of God, "who, when they saw the daughters of men that they were fair, took for themselves from all whom they chose"; and generally all "who left their own habitation, and did not keep their own beginning." By "beginning" I mean not the principate that is compared to power, but I mean the "beginning" which is opposed to the end, and which is conjoined with the first: so that as for man the beginning of existing was in paradise, the end, however, because of transgression, is perhaps in the underworld below, or in some such place; so also for each of those who have fallen, a certain proper beginning happens to be given. However, Jesus, by perfecting the work of God (I mean all the rational nature, and not man alone), perfects it in the same way; for the more blessed ones, being obedient to the Word, not having needed labor, are perfected by the Word alone, while others, having disobeyed the Word, need labors, so that after the labors, by words…

and reasons, they might eventually be led to be perfected. Yet both of these—namely, to do the will of his Father who sent him, and to complete his work—are the one and proper food of Jesus ^A.

38. Heracleon says regarding these words: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me," that the Savior is explaining to the disciples that this was what he was discussing with the woman, calling the will of the Father his food; for this was his nourishment, and rest, and power. And he said the will of the Father was for men to know the Father and be saved, which was the work of the Savior, who had been sent into Samaria—that is, into the world—for this very reason. Therefore, he interpreted the conversation with the Samaritan woman as the food of the Son; which, in my opinion, appears clearly to anyone to have been interpreted in a way that is both demeaning and forced. But how the will of the Father is food for the Savior, and how the will of the Father is also rest, he does not clearly show; for the Lord says elsewhere, as if not every will of the Father were his rest: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt ^B." But from where does it also come that the will of God is the power of the Savior?

39. "Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest'? Behold, I say to you: Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest already." To those who suppose that this was said more simply and corporally: "Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest'?" these matters must be questioned, so that they may be persuaded that the Savior often spoke of things spiritual and naked, free from things perceived by the senses and bodily. For if the time, when Jesus said these things, was four months before the harvest, it was clear that it was winter ^C. For in Judea, the harvest begins to take place around the month called Nisan among the Hebrews, when the Passover is held, so that sometimes the Jews make unleavened bread from new grain. But suppose the harvest is not in that month, but in the month following it, which is called Iyar among them; even so, the time four months before that month is the depth of winter. When, therefore, we show that when he said these things, the time for the harvest was either present, or near to its end, the matter before us will be demonstrated to us. It must be noted, ^D that after the

^A economy which took place in Cana of Galilee concerning the changing of water into wine, the Lord is said to have gone down to Capharnaum with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples, where he remained not many days. And the Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, where he found in the temple those who were selling oxen, and sheep, and pigeons, and the rest of the things that are written, and having made a whip of cords, he cast everyone out of the temple, and said certain things to Nicodemus. After this, he himself and his disciples came into the land of Judea, and he stayed there with them, and was baptizing. ^B How much time, then, shall we set for him having stayed in Judea baptizing after the Passover? For it is not clearly written; and it appears from the fact that the Pharisees knew that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John, that he left Judea and was departing into Galilee, when it was necessary for him to pass through Samaria, and having come to the well of Jacob, he says these words: “Do you not say that there are still four months, and the harvest comes? [Behold I say unto you, lift up your eyes, and see that the regions are already white for the harvest].” ^C But if someone suspects that Jesus spent a period of many months in Judea after the Passover, baptizing with his disciples, so that the time which was before the fourth month of the harvest was already present, it must be put to him that, having remained there for two days with the Samaritans, after these he went out into Galilee; and it is written, as if the Passover had recently occurred, and the things that were done by him in Jerusalem, when he came into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having seen everything that he had done in Jerusalem at the feast, for they themselves also had come to the feast. But it is likely that someone might say to these things ^D that it does not hinder that he stayed for a long time in Judea and came to Jacob’s well, going into Galilee, when he said, “There are still four months to the harvest,” and that there is nothing absurd in the Galileans receiving him on account of the things done by him in Jerusalem in the preceding months. But it must be answered to them that, having set out into Galilee, he came to the city of Cana of Galilee, where he had previously made the water into wine, where he also cured the son of the royal official who was sick in Capharnaum, saying to his father, “Your son lives.” And, “After this was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,” when he cured the man who had the infirmity for thirty-eight years. But whether this feast was the Passover, its name is not added; and the series of the history presses, and especially since after

^A a little is added, that "The feast of the Jews, the Scenopegia, was near."

40. It is therefore right for one looking more deeply into the sense of the Scriptures to inquire what Jesus was saying to the disciples when He said: "Do you not say that there are four months, and the harvest comes? Behold I say to you, Lift up your eyes and behold the regions, for they are white already for harvest." And as we were saying when examining the matters concerning the water in the narrative of the Samaritan woman, so let us do here also. For who would not admit that the saying: "Lift up your eyes and behold the regions, for they are white already for harvest," is spiritual and bare of things perceived by the senses? To which it would be consequent for the disciples to say that the harvest—which, as far as their conjecture went, was similar to the harvest shown by Jesus—would be after four months. We think, therefore, that there is such a meaning in the disciples’ saying: "There are four months, and the harvest comes." Most of the disciples of the Word, considering that the truth is difficult for human nature to attain when they have distinguished concerning a life other than the present life, and being weary in the present of the end of the matters sought, suppose that after their kinship with the four elements ^B they will, by transcending these, apprehend the truth. Therefore the disciples say, according to the Lord’s voice, concerning the harvest—which is the consummation of the works that gather the truth—that it happens after the present quaternary. The name of the months has been conveniently taken for the corporeal discourse concerning the harvest. For it was not necessary to say: "Do you not say that there are still four days, and the harvest comes?" or, "Still four years, and the harvest comes?" especially since the Word wishes to escape the notice of the multitude and those who are addicted to the body; hiding the mystical, but showing the simpler, so that the words uttered by the Savior might be thought to be plain. Or perhaps the intention of the disciples saying, "There are still four months, and the harvest comes," is such as this: There are four spheres of the ^C four elements, which are subordinate to the ethereal nature; in the middle and lowest is that of the earth; around this is that of the water; the third is that of the air; the fourth that of the fire; after which comes the sphere of the moon, and the rest. And let us observe whether perhaps the disciples suppose that those who have been instructed here and departed, and have arrived near a purer essence, will apprehend the truth when one is able—not being corrupted by sin—to pass by the fire

^A which is the matter of the universe in the places preceding... the ethereal places... regions. The Word made flesh, refuting this opinion as unsound to those who believe such things, says: "Do not you say that there are four months, and then the harvest comes? Behold, I say to you: Lift up your eyes and see the regions, for they are already white for harvest." For it seems to us incomprehensible that He should be discoursing about one harvest in all these matters, since the view of those who explain it more simply is that the Lord reprimands the disciples, thinking—as they suppose—that the harvest is to come after the fourth month, which we have shown in the preceding pages cannot possibly be held to come after four months; and besides, He also seems to be correcting the opinion of the disciples, saying: "Do not you" indeed say this? But I say this. Furthermore, how is it not absurd to explain this saying: "Lift up your eyes," and this: "See the regions, for they are already white for harvest," clearly and entirely allegorically, ^B but not to think that the same must be done for that which precedes it, namely: "Do not you say that there are yet four months, and the harvest comes"?

41. However, Heracleon, not otherwise than many others, adheres to the letter, not thinking that it admits of an anagogical sense. He says, therefore, that Jesus is speaking of the harvest of those things which are born, as if this harvest had a determined space of still four months, which He Himself said was now at hand. And I do not know how he has also interpreted the harvest as that of the soul of believers, saying that they are already ripe and prepared for harvest, and even fit to be brought into the barn—that is, through faith into rest—if indeed they are prepared, for not all are prepared: "for some of the souls," he says, "were prepared, some were preparing themselves [namely those souls], and some are already being sown, while others are to be sown." He has said these things, then. But how the disciples, raising their eyes, are able to see the souls that are already fit, as he supposes, to be brought into the barn, I do not know if he can demonstrate; and furthermore, how is it true of souls that "One is he who sows, and another is he who reaps"; ^C and "I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored"; and in what way can it be accepted that the saying, "Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor," applies to the soul? We, therefore, interpret the harvest as the harvest of fruit, which is gathered into eternal life, according to the perfection of reason, which, like a seed in our notions, is perfected through much labor implanted in us. But how it is sown by one and reaped by another, we shall discuss in what follows.

42. "Behold I say to you: Lift up your eyes; and see the regions, for they are already white for harvest." ^D

^A In many places of Scripture this saying is found: "Lift up your eyes," with the divine Word admonishing us to lift up and raise both our senses and the power of perceiving that which lies below, and is prone, and unable to raise itself, so that it may perfectly contemplate sublime things; as in Isaiah: "Lift up your eyes on high, and see who has shown all these things." And the Savior, when He is about to speak the beatitudes to those gathered in the field ^B, having lifted up His eyes toward His disciples, says: "Blessed are...". He knows, and knows well; for no genuine disciple of Jesus lies below, any more than he who rested in the bosom of Abraham. The rich man, indeed, being in torments, having lifted up his eyes, sees Abraham and Lazarus in his bosom. In addition to these, the woman who was bent over, and unable to look up at all, when she had been raised up by Jesus, puts aside her bending and her inability to look up, so that she might lift up her eyes. And truly, no one who is subject to passions, and cleaving to the flesh, or entangled in material things, has kept the commandment that says: "Lift up your eyes." Therefore, such a person will not even see the regions, even if they are already white for harvest. Furthermore, no one working the works of the flesh has lifted up his eyes. But the regions are already white for harvest when the Word of God is present, making clear and illuminating all the regions of Scripture, which are full upon His coming. ^C Perhaps also all things perceptible to the senses, even up to heaven itself, and the things that are in it, are white regions, ready for harvest for those who lift up their eyes, the account concerning each thing being clearly set before those who have received it, from the fact that the same image is being transformed from glory to glory, in the likeness of the eyes of those who saw how each of the things that had been made was good. For this statement: "God saw each of the things that were created, that it was good," is of this kind: God inspected the reasons for each thing, and saw them to be good because of the reasons by which each thing had been created. But if anyone does not understand this statement, "God saw that it was good," in this way, let him explain to us how in the words: "Let the waters bring forth crawling creatures of living souls, which are to live, and winged birds above the earth in the firmament of heaven," the fact is preserved that "God saw that it was good," and especially since God made the great sea monsters; but the reason concerning each of these things is the good that is seen by God. ^D The same must be said also concerning these words: "Let the earth bring forth a living soul according to its kind: quadrupeds, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth according to their kind," to which is also added: "And God saw that it was good." For how are beasts and creeping things good, unless the reason concerning them is the good? But these things are said to us...

because of that: "Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, for they are white already to harvest," ^A the Word who was present exhorting the disciples to lift up their eyes both to the fields of Scripture, and to the fields of the reason inherent and innate in each of existing things, so that one might behold the whiteness and splendor of the light of truth which is everywhere; "For all things," as Solomon says, "are plain to those who understand, and right to those who wish to distribute faculty." ^B

"He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit unto life eternal, that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together." It is necessary, I think, to set forth in how many ways "harvest" is spoken of in Scripture, and in how many significations it is placed, so that, having perceived as best we can the meaning of this name, we may be able to see from among those many meanings into which one this term is to be placed. We find, then, in the Gospel according to Matthew, when the disciples came to the Lord saying, "Declare to us the parable of the tares of the field," a teaching of the Lord concerning this, which after other things says: "The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels." But indeed, in another place, concerning the multitude of those who believe and who have need of a teaching that would make clear to them those things which they believe, our Savior says: "The harvest indeed is great, but the laborers are few; pray therefore to the Lord of the harvest, that he may send out laborers into his harvest." ^C In addition to these, the Apostle names "seed" the abundance in this life, or the sin of men; and "harvest" those things which are laid up for each person according to their merit, whether for noble deeds or for sins which each has committed in this present life, saying thus: "For whatever a man sows, that he will also reap; for he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap life eternal." And I think that the Prophet who is circulated in the Psalms has spoken in a similar signification, saying: "Those who sow in tears shall reap in joy. They went on their way weeping, bearing their seed; but when they return they shall come with joy, bringing their sheaves with them." The name is also placed frequently according to common usage, just as it is in the book of Ruth, through these words: ^D "And they arrived at Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest." Having thus set forth at present the five significations of harvest, it is manifest that here, the harvest is not accepted as we are accustomed to speak in common usage, nor as it is set down for the end and consummation; for neither in common usage do we say, "He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit unto life eternal," nor is it reasonable to understand in this place what is said concerning the angel reapers as an exhortation to reap. But neither is it according to that which says "He who sows..."

^A to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, and he who sows to the spirit shall of the spirit reap life eternal," such that one might take here the saying: "He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit unto life eternal." For according to the Apostolic sayings, the same person is the sower and the reaper, whether in the flesh or in the spirit, and on that account he gathers either corruption or eternal life; but according to the present circumstances, another is he who sows and another is he who reaps. Similarly, the same person sows and reaps according to the saying we adduced from the Psalms, though it differs from the Apostolic saying in being more mystical and more hidden. For the Apostolic one is spoken more simply, not teaching where the diverse nature of the seeds is taken from. But that from the Psalms seems to me to signify the descent of the nobler souls who have come into this life with saving seeds, and indeed have come as it were reluctantly with sighing, but returned in exultation because they have well cultivated, and increased, and multiplied the seeds with which they came. But "another is he who sows and another is he who reaps" in the text before us. ^B

44. And Heracleon will say—or perhaps someone who follows this interpretation and is also an ecclesiastic—that these words were spoken in the same signification as what was said: "The harvest is great, but the laborers are few," in that those who are ready for the harvest and fit to be already gathered into the barn are in rest through faith, and are fit for salvation and the reception of the Word [of God]; according to Heracleon, because they were so created and had such a nature; but according to the ecclesiastic, because of a certain diligent preparation of that part of the soul which is most excellent, being ready and prepared for perfection, so that it might even be reaped. We must therefore say to those who have interpreted it in this way, whether they wish to admit that there was never before the advent of our Savior a harvest similar to that which was thus hoped for from the times of the evangelical preaching. For if, because the harvest was great, many believed—albeit the laborers, the apostles, were few in comparison to the multitude of those who received the Word of God—or because of that saying: ^C "Lift up your eyes and behold the regions, for they are white for harvest already," no one before the bodily advent of our Savior believed, nor has there been any laborer of believers, which is a most absurd thing to say, if Abraham, and Moses, and the prophets held neither the place of laborers nor that of those being reaped; or, if there have been laborers and a harvest even before, then it will appear nothing marvelous for the Savior to announce to those lifting up ^D

^A their eyes, that they should behold the regions, that they are already white for the harvest. From these things, indeed, it can be somewhat clear that none of those things previously mentioned is understood here in regard to the harvest. Nor, indeed, will that which is understood in another place by the Apostle be applicable here, where he says: “He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly; and he who sows in blessings will also reap in blessings.”

256 45. Let us, therefore, inquire into the seventh meaning, which is convenient ^B to those things we discussed above, regarding the passage: “Do you not say that there are still four months, and the harvest comes?” and regarding this: “Behold, I say to you: Lift up your eyes, and see the regions, that they are already white for the harvest.” Let the harvest for us be reasoning, or open speech, concerning the perspicuity of the Scriptures (just as how everything that God made is very good), which harvest he who reaps has two fruits of reaping: one, that he receives a reward; the other, that he gathers fruit into eternal life. And I think that on account of the promises to come hereafter, according to what is written: “Behold the Lord, and his reward is in his hand, to render to each ^C according to his works,” it was said: “He receives a reward”; but on account of the utility proceeding from that very cognition—which by nature resides in the mind itself, and in the rational nature existing as a certain excellent and notable thing, and even apart from promises that are other than these—it was written: “He gathers fruit into eternal life”; which thing shows a certain benefit and advantage [of the mental faculty], just as we expounded in the third book of the *Stromateis*, explaining that saying: “Your Father, who sees in secret, will render to you in public.”

46. Heracleon thinks that the one who reaps receives a reward, ^D because the Savior calls himself the reaper, and he believes that the reward of our Lord is the salvation and restoration of those who are being reaped, because he himself finds rest in them; but in these words, “and gathers fruit into eternal life,” he thinks that “fruit” is used either because that which is gathered is the fruit of eternal life, or because the gathering itself is also eternal life. But I think his interpretation is strained in this place, as he says that the Savior receives a reward and confuses the reward and the gathering of the fruit into one, while Scripture explicitly sets two things in the middle, as we have shown above. If, therefore, we have attained the lifting up of the apostolic eyes, and the vision of the regions already white for the harvest, we must in the same way accurately inquire what this saying is: “That he who sows may rejoice together, and he who reaps.” I think, indeed, that in every art and science which consists of many speculations, he who finds the principles sows, which others receive and, working upon them...

^A with greater curiosity, become the cause for those who follow—who were unable to find the principles, to join the subsequent parts, and to put the finishing touch upon the arts and sciences—to receive the full fruit of such arts and sciences when they have been completed, just as in a harvest. If this be true in the arts and in certain sciences, how much more is it to be observed in the art of arts and the science of sciences? For those who came after, having examined with greater care the things discovered by their predecessors, handed on to those who followed—who approached the discoveries with an inquiring mind—the opportunities to assemble with wisdom one body of truth. ^B Now that the entire work of the art of arts has been completed, he who sows and he who reaps rejoice together, since God in turn gathers everyone into one end. Consider, then, whether the sowers are Moses and the prophets, who wrote those things “which are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come,” and who heralded the advent of Christ; and whether the reapers are the apostles, who received Christ and beheld his glory, which accords with the prophetic and rational seeds concerning him, which were harvested according to the careful examination and understanding of the mystery hidden from the ages, but revealed at the end of the times: “which in other generations was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets.” The seed was the whole word ^C according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept silent in eternal times, but is now manifested “by the prophetic Scriptures,” and by the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, when the true light made the regions white unto harvest by shining upon them. According to this reasoning, the regions in which the seeds were cast are the Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, which were not white because they had not received the presence and advent of the Word. They become such, however, to those who are instructed by the Son of God and who obey Him when He says: “Lift up your eyes, and look on the regions, that they are white already unto harvest.” As genuine disciples of Christ, therefore, let us also lift up our eyes and look at the regions sown by Moses and the prophets, that we may see their ^D whiteness, and how it is now possible to harvest them and gather their fruit “into life eternal,” while hoping also to receive a reward from the Lord of the regions and the donor of the seeds. Thus, every one of the readers will confess that the sower and the reaper shall rejoice together, when pain and sorrow and sighing have fled away in the world to come, that “many

^A from the east and west shall come and shall recline with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens.” But if anyone hesitates to accept that the sower also already rejoices with every reaper, let him understand that the transformation of Jesus, as He appeared in glory, was in a certain sense a harvest, not only for the reapers Peter, James, and John, who had ascended with Him, but also for the sowers, Moses and Elijah; for they rejoice together with them, beholding the glory of the Son of God, which, having been illumined by the Father and illumining those who behold it, Moses and Elijah had not previously seen as they now behold it together with the holy apostles.

As a universal principle, however, we may take the statement equivalent to this: “The reaper receives a reward, and gathers fruit unto life eternal, that the sower may rejoice together with the reaper,” because in what follows it is said that the reapers are many, and many are those who have labored, namely, in sowing. For it is said as to many reapers: “I sent you to reap that which you have not labored upon;” and as to many who have toiled in the sowing: “Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.” This proposition is equivalent to a universal one: “The reaper receives a reward;” and the meaning is such: “Every one ^B who reaps receives a reward, and gathers fruit unto life eternal, so that every one who sows may rejoice together with every one who reaps.”

Now, some will readily accept these things, not doubting that the things hidden from the ages of old, and from Moses himself and the prophets, were manifested to the holy apostles at the coming of Christ, who illumined for them the light of the knowledge of the whole Scripture; others, however, will be hesitant to admit this, not daring to say that so great a man as Moses and the prophets, while yet passing their life among men, had not attained to the things which the apostles understood, and this notwithstanding that these things were sown in the Scriptures which Moses and the prophets themselves had administered. But the former group will use this saying: “Many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see; and to hear what you hear, and did not hear;” and also this: “Behold, something greater than Solomon is here;” and also that: “In other ages it was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets, that the Gentiles should be coheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ.” ^C They will also adduce what Daniel wrote after a certain vision: “I arose, and there was no one who understood;” and that of Isaiah: “The words of this book are as a book of a man sealed, which if they give to a man not knowing letters, saying: Read, he will say: I do not know letters; and they will give it to a man knowing letters, and he will say: I cannot read, for it is sealed.” ^D On the other hand, the others will refute all these things with the sentiment: “The wise man will understand the things from his own mouth.”

^A They say that Moses and each of the prophets understood the things that were administered by them, yet not so as to hand them over to others or to unfold the mysteries; whereas the apostles, as those who existed in the time of revelation, say: “Stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught.” And that: “The things which you heard from me through many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men, who will be competent to teach others also.” And that, if many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things which the apostles saw, and to hear the things they heard while the Savior was speaking, they did not entirely desire the things of the legal Scriptures and the prophets, but greater things than these, which were announced to the apostles—in addition to the spiritual things of the Law and the hidden things of the prophets—by the Savior; such as was that: “I heard ^B unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter,” and similar things to those said by the Paraclete.

Furthermore, let us also consider the context in these matters, how the evangelist tells of a certain reaper who receives a wage and gathers fruit unto eternal life, saying: “That he who sows may rejoice together, and he who reaps.” If he who sows may rejoice together, and he who reaps receives a wage and gathers fruit unto eternal life, perhaps he who sows, participating in the wage with the reaper and in the gathering of the fruit that is brought to eternal life, shall rejoice together with the reaper. But another will say that all the legal and prophetic writings were accurately understood by Moses and the prophets according to the spiritual interpretation, and—as was fitting—were ^C written in a covered and veiled manner as the things sown; and since “if a wise man hears a wise word, he will praise it and add to it,” it is clear that the apostles, using as seeds the more hidden and deeper things that had been understood by Moses and the prophets, have progressed to reaching visions of the truth that are by far more manifold, with Jesus lifting up their eyes and illuminating their minds. And the more manifold things were a harvest of the white fields. Yet it is not as though the prophets and Moses were inferior, not seeing from the beginning all things that the apostles saw at the advent of Christ, but rather as though they were awaiting the fullness of time, in which it behooved that, along with the singular advent ^D of Jesus Christ, things even more excellent than those ever spoken or written in the world should be revealed by Him who did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself and took the form of a servant.

47. “For in this the statement is true, that another is one who sows, and another is one who reaps.” Whether according to

^A the example taken from the arts and sciences we interpret the presence, it is clear that the statement is true: “one is he who sows, and another is he who reaps.” Whether it is because Moses and the prophets have sown, while those who have lifted up their eyes according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ—who had instructed them to see how the regions were already white for harvest—have beheld the regions to be white; and thus it is manifest in what way one is the sower, and another is the reaper. But consider whether "one and another" can be understood in this way, because the former are justified by such a way of life, but the latter by a different one, so that we say one is the legal way, the other the evangelical. Nevertheless, they rejoice together, with one end laid up for both by one God, through one Christ, in one Holy Spirit. ^B

48. Regarding Heracleon’s words: “That he who sows may rejoice together with him who reaps,” he explained it thus: “He who sows, he says, rejoices both because he sows, and because some species of his seeds are gathered, having the same hope also for the rest; he who reaps likewise reaps something; but the first, who sows, began, the second, who reaps, is the one who follows; for it was not possible for both to begin at the same time, for it was necessary that there be sowing first, and then reaping. Yet when the sower has ceased sowing, the reaper will still reap. In the present case, however, ^C both, performing their own work, rejoice together, considering the perfection of the seeds to be a common joy.” Furthermore, regarding the saying: “In this the statement is true, that another is he who sows, and another is he who reaps,” he says: “The one who is above the place sows, the Son of Man; but the Savior, being Himself also the Son of Man, reaps, and sends reapers—those understood to be the angels through the disciples—each to his own soul.” However, he did not explain very clearly who the two sons of man are, who they are, of whom one sows and one reaps.

49. “I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.” It is not difficult to see from what we have said above ^D how Jesus sent the disciples to reap that for which they themselves had not labored, but their predecessors: for since Moses and the prophets had labored so that they might be able to grasp the understanding of the mysteries, the footprints of which they left for us in their own writings, the apostles entered into the labor of Moses and the prophets, taught the mysteries by Jesus, reaping and gathering into the storehouses of their own souls the sense hidden within them. And truly, the Word always makes the labors of the elders clearer to those who desire to learn genuinely, even if not

^A equally laboring as those who have sown. And among all things that are said ^B concerning those who are being harvested by others, this also must be observed: whether, since angels have been appointed over the sowing of men, the apostles, as fellow-workers in the perfection of those who have been sown, do not enter into the labor of others to reap, and find fruits in those who were benefited, whom the arrival of Jesus had made ready for harvest even before the four months that were hoped for. If these things are so, it is worthy to consider whether the ministry of the angels, which they expend in sowing souls into bodies, is laborious, inasmuch as they bring together two things that are by nature contrary into one temperament, and at the appointed time begin to execute the economy for each, and bring the previously fashioned man to completion. But someone will say that it is contrary to these things that God is spoken of as fashioning them, both in the saying: "Your hands made me, and fashioned me," and in the saying: "Before I fashioned you in the womb, I knew you, and before you went out from the womb, I sanctified you." ^B To this it must be answered that, just as the law was ordained through angels, and the word spoken became firm—it being clear that it was spoken by God—so also it is possible that, even through the angels appointed over generation, God may be said to fashion in the womb. But I do not know if there is room for this regarding the problem posed, and to say such a thing: that they who said, "Your hands made me, and fashioned me"—namely Job and David—being of the portion of God, were fashioned by Him; and Jeremiah, hearing "Before I fashioned you in the womb, I knew you," was fashioned by Him as one who was to be of the portion of God; but others, being of the portions of others, are fashioned by those to whom they fell by lot. And this thought will be examined more minutely: the saying, "Let us make man according to our image and likeness," ^C God saying this concerning all men, and beginning the work, which work is later also performed by those others to whom the word is addressed, according to their own portion—to them God says, "Let us make man;" to whom He also says at the time of the confusion of languages: "Come, let us go down and confuse their language there." We do not say these things as making a definitive statement; for things of this magnitude require much scrutiny, so that it may be found whether it is thus, or otherwise. Yet one should not despise such an interpretation ^D that each of the men is a portion of someone according to the...

^A saying: "When the Most High divided the nations, and when he dispersed the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God; and the Lord’s portion became his people Jacob, the lot of his inheritance, Israel." But if every man is definitely a portion of some one, God having dispersed the sons of Adam, each of the angels exerts himself concerning his own portion, ordering what pertains to it. But at the arrival of the Savior, those who are led captive are taken so that they may obey Christ, from the portion of all, through the apostles, evangelists, and teachers who minister to the Gospel by Christ, and they are brought in so that the nations may become the inheritance of Christ. Perhaps, then, it is for this reason that it can be said to the apostles who will shortly hear: "Go, make disciples of all nations," and that: "Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor." But if holy angels are they who have obtained the other portions apart from the elect one, and have been appointed over the dispersion of the souls, there is nothing absurd in the sower rejoicing together with the reaper after the harvest. ^B Heracleon says, however, that these seeds were not sown by themselves, nor from themselves (meaning the apostles). He says: "Those who have labored are the angels of the dispensation, through whom, as mediators, it was sown and nurtured." And concerning the text: "You have entered into their labor," he set forth these things: "For the goal is not the same for those sowing and those reaping; for the former sow while digging the earth in cold and water and toil, and they labor throughout the whole winter, hoeing and clearing away the woods; but those who have entered into prepared fruit reap with joy." It will be for the prudent reader, by comparing what has been said by us with what has been said by Heracleon, to see which of the interpretations is more probable.

50. "From that city many of the Samaritans believed because of the word of the woman who testified: 'Because he told me all things that I did'." After the Samaritan woman had left her water pot and gone away into the city to announce what she had heard from the Savior, and when those who believed the word of the woman were coming to the Lord, in the meantime the Savior, speaking to the disciples, ^C performed the words spoken of above, as the disciples were beseeching him to eat. But after those things which we have investigated to the best of our ability had been said to the disciples, Scripture resumes the account concerning the Samaritans because of the word of the woman who testified that he told her all things that she had done. As the Samaritan woman had left her water pot and had gone into the city to proclaim the things concerning the Savior, and as those who believed because of the word of the woman were coming to the Lord, in the interval the Savior, meeting the disciples, speaks the aforementioned words while the disciples were asking him to eat. And after [the words] had been spoken to the disciples, ^D [the text resumes] concerning those who were about to...

had come from the city to him, and who believed because of the testimony of the woman who said: “He told me all that I did.” But if we keep in mind what was said above regarding Samaria, the Samaritan woman, and the well of Jacob, it is not difficult to see how those who have attained sound doctrine, having previously been occupied with doctrines dissenting from the decrees of the Church, leave behind what is, as it were, a city of dogmas, and having gone out from it, they believe healthily; just as a certain woman had previously received the saving doctrine at Jacob’s well, and had left behind her aforementioned water jar, in order to invite others to be similarly benefited. Heracleon interpreted “from the city” instead as “from the world”; and as for “because of the woman’s word,” he says this means “because of the spiritual Church.” ^B And he notes the word “many,” as if there are many psychical [people]; but he says that the one nature of the election is incorrupt, and uniform, and singular: to which things we also applied ourselves in the preceding parts as best we could.

51. “So when they came to him, the Samaritans asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. And many more believed because of his word.” One might not unreasonably conflict this saying with the commandment: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into a city of the Samaritans.” For the Savior, being asked by the Samaritans to stay [with them], stayed there two days, though he had said: “Do not enter into a city of the Samaritans”; it is clear, therefore, ^C that his disciples had also entered with him. Regarding this, it must be said that to go into the way of the Gentiles is to adopt some Gentile dogma, foreign to the Israel of God, and to walk in it; but to enter into a city of the Samaritans is to adhere to some falsely-named knowledge of those who claim to apply their minds to the legal, or prophetic, or evangelical, or apostolic words. But it is permitted for the Samaritans, having left their own city and having come to Jesus beside the well of Jacob, that Jesus should accept the resolve of those who believed and stay with those who asked him. I think, however, that John did not use “the Samaritans asked him” ^D to enter into Samaria or to enter into the city, but rather “to stay with them”; for it is not the same thing to stay with a believer as it is to enter into his city. And as for what follows, where he says:

of his own life. Moreover, the following reading does not say “He remained in that city for two days,” or that he remained in Samaria, but “he remained there,” that is, among those who had asked him. For Jesus remains with those who ask him, and especially when those asking him go out from their city and come to Jesus himself, as if imitating Abraham, who obeyed God when He said: “Go forth from your land, and from your kindred, and from your father’s house.” ^B And he remained two days with those who had asked him; for they were not yet able to receive his third day, since they were unable to grasp any miracle, just as the fellow citizens of Cana in Galilee did not when they were dining with Jesus at the wedding on the third day. The beginning, therefore, of the many who believed from Samaria was the word of the woman testifying that Jesus told her everything she had done; but the increase and multiplication of those who believed in much greater numbers was no longer because of the woman’s word, but because of his word. For the Word himself is not perceived from himself—illuminating the one who receives him—in the same way as when he is testified to by being spoken of through another. But Heracleon, concerning these passages, says these things: “He dwelt ‘among them,’ and not ‘in them’; and ‘two days,’ namely, either the present age and the coming time of the wedding, or the time before his passion and after his passion: which time having spent among them, and having turned many more to faith through his own word, he was separated from them.” ^C To this apparent observation of his, namely that it was written “among them” and not “in them,” it must be said that that saying, “Behold, I am with you all the days,” is similar to this, “he dwelt among them”; for he did not say, “I am in you.” Furthermore, in saying that the two days are either this present age and the future one, or the time before the passion and after the passion, he did not consider the subsequent ages after the future age, concerning which the Apostle says: “That he might show in the ages to come”; nor did he perceive that Jesus associates with those who come to him not only before the passion, but also after the passion, and is not separated after this; for he is always with the disciples, never at any time abandoning them; to such an extent that they even say: “I live, yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me.”

52. “And they said to the woman: No longer because of your speech do we believe; for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world.” ^D They deny the faith which they had because of the speech of the woman, because they found something more excellent than that, having heard the Savior himself, insomuch that they recognized that this man is truly the Savior of the world. And indeed, it is better to see the Word with one’s own eyes, and himself to...

^A hear as he teaches without intermediaries, and to imprint upon the governing faculty of the soul the manifestations of truth, than not to see him, nor to be illuminated by the power of those who have seen him, but to hear the account concerning him from ministers who have seen him. For it is impossible for the one who is taught by someone who has seen him to undergo the same affection in his governing faculty as that which occurs in the governing faculty of him who has seen him; and therefore it is by far better to walk by sight than by faith. For this reason, some who walk as it were by sight might be said to be in the preeminent charisms, namely in the word of wisdom through the Spirit of God, and in the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; while those who walk by faith, even if faith is a charism, according to the passage “To another faith by the same Spirit,” are last in the order of the former.

But we must examine when and how Paul says, “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” For how, as many suppose, does he who says most weightily, “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord?” walk by faith and not by sight? Let us see, therefore, how we must interpret the text, “For we walk by faith, not by sight,” taking it up where it stands in the preceding context: ^B “He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the guarantee of the Spirit. Being therefore always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord—for we walk by faith, not by sight—(it is clear that we are at home in the body when we are away from the Lord) we are of good courage and prefer rather to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.”

These things having been said, in order to understand what it is to be at home in the body and away from the Lord, and what it is to be away from the body and at home with the Lord, let us ask ourselves what we shall say about the Apostle: whether it is that while dwelling at home in the body he was away from the Lord, or that while dwelling away from the body he was at home with the Lord. But it is clear; since those who are in the flesh cannot please God, and the saints are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in them, Paul was not in the flesh, nor in the body; for he speaks truly saying, “And I think that I also have the Spirit of God.” Yet he was not dwelling in the flesh and body, since the one who dwells in the body walks by faith, not by sight. And see if it can be of such apostolic precision that we should say that being in the flesh and dwelling in the body are not the same; for those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But those who dwell in the body are indeed away from the Lord, yet they walk by faith, even if they do not yet attain to walking by sight. And I think that those are in the flesh who live according to ^{C D}

the flesh, but they dwell in the body and away from the Lord who do not understand the spiritual things of Scripture, but are wholly attached to it, as also to the body; for how is he not away from the Lord, if the Lord is the Spirit, he who does not yet grasp the life-giving Spirit and the spiritual meaning of Scripture? Nevertheless, such a person walks by faith, but he is away from the body and present with the Lord who compares spiritual things with spiritual, and having become spiritual, he judges all things, but himself is judged by no one. These things, even if they seem to have been said by way of a digression on the apostolic words, are nevertheless most necessary for the distinction of the speech of the Samaritans, who no longer believe because of the woman’s talk, ^B but because they have heard and known that this is the Savior of the world. It should not, however, be surprising that some walk by faith and not by sight, while concerning others, it is by sight, which is greater than walking by faith. Heracleon, having explained this saying more simply: "No longer do we believe because of your talk," says that the word "only" is missing. Furthermore, concerning the text: "For we ourselves have heard, and we know that this is the Savior of the world," he says: "For men at first, being instructed by men, believe in the Savior; but as soon as they encounter his words, they no longer believe because of human testimony alone, but because of the truth itself."

55. "After the two days, he went out from there into Galilee; for Jesus himself bore witness that a prophet has no honor in his own country." The sequence seems highly inconsistent. For what does this saying have in common with his having gone out after two days from the Samaritans, among whom he had stayed, and departing into Galilee: ^C "For Jesus himself bore witness that a prophet has no honor in his own country"? For if Samaria had been his country, and he had been despised there, so that for this reason he had gone out, not remaining more than two days, it would have been said consistently: "For Jesus himself bore witness that a prophet has no honor in his own country." Moreover, if it had been written: "After the two days, he went out into Galilee, but he did not go to his own country; for Jesus himself bore witness that a prophet has no honor in his own country," then in this way too that which is said would have had a place; and perhaps such is the intention of the context: but John, being as it were unrefined in his speech, wrote obscurely what he had conceived in his mind. ^D For into what place of Galilee they received him, having seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the feast, is not said by the evangelist, who wrote after that, that he came into Cana of Galilee; and he records that it is his own [place].

^A Having thus explained the manner in which the Lord leaves Judea and departs into Galilee, and having recounted, since it was necessary for him to pass through Samaria, the things said near the field which Jacob gave to Joseph by the well of Jacob, and how he stayed two days with the Samaritans, he assigns His arrival into Galilee, although not a few things were said in between. Since, however, we have stated above that Judea is a symbol of a better condition, being situated in a higher place, while Galilee represents one of a lesser, and that for this reason the God who loves mankind does not despise those who are in need of visitation and who are of a lower rank; for this reason, having quickly left the Samaritans ^B in order to be present with the Galileans who had eagerly received Him, He proceeds to heal the son of the nobleman. Having done these things in Galilee, when the feast of the Jews was at hand, He goes up to Jerusalem, making the feast better and more joyful by His own presence.

54. "Let us see what is meant by, 'For Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country,' and, worthily of the one testifying about Jesus, we must seek the meaning of the expression. The country of the prophets was in Judea, and it is manifest that they were not held in honor by the Jews, being stoned, sawn asunder, tempted, dying by the slaughter of the sword, for the sake of which they were dishonored, wandering about in sheepskins, ^C in goatskins, destitute, afflicted, tormented. And the Jews are indeed reproached by Him who said to them, 'Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted, and they killed those who announced beforehand concerning the coming of the Just One?' who at the end even dishonored the prophet over all, through whom the prophets were made prophets, saying, 'Away, away, crucify him.' But all the prophets have been honored in *my* country, and He who has been raised up by God according to the things spoken concerning Himself by Moses: 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet from among your brethren, like me; Him you shall hear'; for His country is among the nations who have received salvation through the fall of Israel. And it is written in others, 'No prophet is accepted in his own country, and in his own house'; and it is useful indeed, having gathered the passage related to this from the Gospels, to see when, and by whom the Savior, this was said. One should wonder ^D at Origen: for when he had said above that the country of the prophets was Judea, and that they had been reviled there with insults, he adds that in his own country—namely, Alexandria and Egypt—not only the prophets, but Christ Himself also was held in honor; for the Christian cause had by then gathered no small growth in those parts.

^A It is the truth of the Savior's decision that has reached not only the holy prophets, who were despised by their own kin, and to our Lord Himself, but also to those who have excelled in some wisdom and have been held in contempt by their fellow citizens, so much so that some of them were even led away to death. And it is possible to gather from Greek history those things concerning those who have practiced philosophy and astronomy, or have distinguished themselves in any disciplines whatsoever. And these are the voices of those who insult: "Is this not the son of the carpenter? Is not His mother called Mary, and are not His brothers with us? From where then does He have all these things?" And a most paradoxical thing has indeed happened regarding the prophets: their fellow citizens did not honor them while they were alive, but they tend to them when they are dead, building and adorning their monuments. But building the monuments of the prophets and adorning them signifies when someone, having abandoned the life-giving Spirit hidden in the senses of the letters themselves, cherishes and adorns the killing letter, thinking the beauty of the prophecy lies in the naked perception of the letter. And this is the work of those scribes and Pharisees who were rebuked by the Lord; the scribes being named after the nakedness of the letter, and the Pharisees those who have separated themselves and have lost the divine unity; for "Pharisees," if you interpret it, are the same as "the divided."

55. "Then when He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all that He did in Jerusalem at the feast: for they also had come to the feast." ^C It is worth seeing the cause for which the Galileans received the Savior who had come into Galilee, whether it was so great as to cause them astonishment and wonder regarding the Savior, so as to receive Him; and furthermore to what this statement refers, as if there were many things that Jesus did in Jerusalem; "having seen all that He did in Jerusalem at the feast." But we find nothing previously stated except that "He found in the temple those selling oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the money-changers sitting, and having made a whip from cords, He cast them all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen, and He poured out the coins of the money-changers, and overturned the ^D tables, and said to those selling the doves: Take these things from here, do not make the house of My Father a house of merchandise." What then is so great in these things, so that the Galileans, moved by them, should receive the Lord, concerning whom the evangelist testifies that when they came to Jerusalem to the feast, they had seen all that Jesus did there? To which we must answer, if we are mindful of those things we have said regarding that place, which declared not a lesser power of the Savior.

^A than that which functioned to make the blind see, the deaf hear, and the lame walk, that perhaps the Galileans, having contemplated and thought upon these things, and having been struck with wonder at the divinity of Jesus, received him as he came into Galilee because they had seen all the things which he did in Jerusalem. Now all these things were: the driving of the sheep, the oxen, and the money of the money-changers out of the temple with a scourge made of rope, and the overturning of the tables. And with authority it was said to those selling the doves: "Take these things away from here; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade." I think that he performed not only these things at that time, but other signs also; for it is added to these ^B: "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, at the feast, many believed in his name when they saw his signs which he did," on account of which Nicodemus also says: "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs which thou doest, unless God be with him." However, it is possible for a Galilean, when he is in Jerusalem, where the temple of God is, to celebrate the feast and to see all the things which Jesus did there, and especially in what way, with the scourge made of rope by him, he cast out all those selling oxen and sheep, and the sheep, and the oxen, and the rest. For the feast in Jerusalem is a beginning for the Galileans also to receive the Son of God coming to them; for if they had not seen the things at the feast, they would not have received him; nor would he himself, had they not been prepared beforehand to receive him, have resided there so eagerly, leaving behind those who asked him to stay with them ^C. Yet those who received Jesus received also him who sent him; for he says: "He who receives me receives him who sent me." First, therefore, one must see—that is, understand—all the works of Jesus in Jerusalem, and in what way he cleanses the temple, restoring it to be the house of the Father and no longer a house of trade, so that after we have contemplated these things, we may receive the Word who performed them. I think that he who has not contemplated all the works of Jesus in Jerusalem will not receive Jesus, and he will not even receive the visitation—of which visitation this is a symbol—to those who had not previously gone up to the feast, and had not beheld all that he did in Jerusalem ^D.

56. "Then he came again to Cana in Galilee, where he made the water wine." Whatever we have understood regarding Cana, we have said above. But it is not without purpose that two visitations of Jesus occur in Cana.

^A Perhaps, then, these signify the two advents of the Savior into the world: the first, that He might gladden those feasting together; the second, that He might raise up, not the son of a king, but the son of some royal official who was near to death. And perhaps the royal official was Abraham, or Jacob, whose son—the [Israelite] people—He will save at the end, after the fullness of the Gentiles has entered in. There may also be two advents of the Word in the soul: the former, providing wine made from water for the gladdening of those feasting together; the latter, removing all remaining infirmity and everything that threatens death. It is no wonder—since most of the works of God lie hidden—that Jesus, doing many things for the salvation of those who dwell in many places (of which the other recorded places are figures), visits this Cana twice, to establish for Himself the possession of those from this earth who, through Him, would believe in the Father.

57. "And there was a certain royal official whose son was ill at Capharnaeum," up to this point: "And he believed, himself, and his whole house." We do not find the name "royal official" much used among the Jews; ^B whence, as far as the history is concerned, we cannot conceive who this royal official was, or of which king he was the namesake. Therefore, one who is simpler will think that this royal official was some man of King Herod. Again, another person, similar to him, will say that this royal official was from the house of Caesar, doing some business in Judea at that time; for it is not openly found that he was a Jew, because it does not follow that he must have been a native of those places just because his son was ill in Capharnaeum. However, his status is shown also from this: that he is said to have been met by his servants as he was already descending, saying that his son was alive—for they are spoken of in the plural.

Let the history stand as it may, and may the son of the royal official also be elegantly understood according to the word of the Savior: liberated from the fever at the seventh hour, may his whole house believe. But come, let us investigate as far as we are able of what thing this royal official and his son might be a symbol. A great King, therefore, whose city is the true Jerusalem, and the King of kings, who went abroad ^C to a far country to receive for Himself a kingdom, and to return—and we know of no other King returning than Him who said: "I, however, have been established King by Him upon Sion, His holy mountain, proclaiming the decree of the Lord." All who have seen the day of this One, and have rejoiced, are royal officials; and those who believe in the Father through Him are the namesakes ^D of His kingdom: of whom each one...

we seek, as well as his son who fell ill, and the consequences thereof. We have said in the preceding pages that the entire people is the son of Abraham, as they themselves also, boasting, say: ^A “We are Abraham’s seed, and have never been in bondage to any man,” and: “Art Thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead?” For, just as if the people were boasting in him more than in the other fathers, and those who existed after him, the Savior also says: “Do not begin to say, We have Abraham to our father,” or, “Think not to say, We have Abraham to our father; for God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” But Isaiah also says to the people: “Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you.” And why is it necessary to lengthen the discourse with examples, when it is manifest that he himself is the first father of the people, and for this reason is singularly named father? We suspect, therefore, that the ^B royal official is Abraham, and his son who fell ill in Capernaum and was about to die is the Israelite race, which had grown ill in the worship of God and in the observance of the divine laws, and was becoming—to speak in this way—heated by the fiery darts of the enemy against dying unto God; whence it is also said to be feverish. But it appears that the saints who have previously departed from this life have a care for the people, as it is written in the books of the Maccabees, after very many years from the death of Jeremiah: “This is Jeremiah the prophet of God, who prayeth much for the people.” See, therefore, if we might be able to interpret that Abraham, being a certain royal official, when his son fell ill and was about to die, asks our Savior for help for the sufferer, having gone to Him, and beseeching that He might descend ^C and heal his son; for he was about to die.

58. The words, “Except ye see signs and wonders,” spoken to them, have reference to the multitude of his sons, and perhaps also to himself. For just as John, expecting the advent of Christ, awaited the given sign so that through it he might know the One who was being prophesied—and the sign was: “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is the Son of God”—so also the saints who had previously fallen asleep, expectant of the advent of Christ in the body, were looking for Him to be manifested by signs and wonders, believing through these in Him who was being hoped for. But he prays that the Lord may ^D quickly descend to his own sick child, being anxious lest death might forestall Him and take the invalid; and Christ drives out the fever by a word, announcing to the father that the life of the one in danger survives, by the words: “Go thy way; thy son liveth.” This royal official has not only a son, but also servants, of whom the home-born and purchased slaves of Abraham were a symbol, a kind of...

^A lower and more humble form of believers. These servants, living with the fever-stricken child, behold his salvation and run to the father, announcing the life of him who was healed by the word: “Thy son liveth,” and they make him glad with that word, as they had not previously thought the master’s child would live. And not in vain did the fever leave him at the seventh hour; for that number is the mark of rest. The son, however, who is ill and made whole in Capharnaum—which means "field of consolation"—is a certain class of those who are weary, but who have not been entirely without fruit, and perfect faith comes to the father who, having acknowledged the salvation of his son, believes in Christ with all his house. And how Jesus, descending from Judea into Galilee, performed this second miracle, we shall investigate as we are able in the following sections, when we reach that part of the text.

^B If the royal official is an image of some power among those who rule this age, and his son is an image of those who exist under their authority, or of the people who excel among those near them, and—to put it this way—as if they were the selection made by him; if his infirmity is an evil disposition contrary to the purpose of the ruler; and if the city of Capharnaum is an image of the place of residence of those subject to him, it must be considered. For I believe that some of the rulers ^C, struck by his power and divinity, have fled to him and petitioned him on behalf of those subject to them. For why, I ask, do men receive repentance and pass from infidelity to faith, while we fear to say the same regarding the powers? Or let someone tell us the cause why men clothed in flesh and blood can, when changed, flee to God through Christ, but those who employ a purer nature are all deemed incapable of belief in the Savior, and of being struck with astonishment at the miraculous virtues which he performed. For my part, I think that a change for the better occurred even among those powers, what they call the principalities, at the advent of Christ; to such an extent that certain entire cities, or even nations, have had a more favorable disposition toward the things of Christ than many others. And there will be nothing absurd in this interpretation if it be said to the royal official: “Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe.” The royal official can also pray concerning the power of God, ^D having set out to him, that he might descend to the place of the child’s illness and cure him who is sick; yet it is not necessary that he descend at all to the son of the royal official who is suffering with fever; for it suffices that the word: “Thy son liveth,” be spoken for the salvation of the child.

^A

59. Heracleon seems to call the Creator a “kinglet” 70, because he also reigned over those beneath him. But because his kingdom was small and temporary, he was called a “kinglet,” as if a certain small king appointed by a universal king over a small kingdom. And he explains the son in Capharnaum as being the one who is in the lower part of the ^B mediety, towards the sea—that is, the one joined to matter. And he says that his own man, being infirm—that is, not conducting himself according to nature—was in ignorance and sins. Then concerning the text: “from Judea into Galilee,” he interpreted it as meaning from the supernal Judea. I do not know, however, how he is moved by the words, “he was beginning to die” 72, to think that the opinion of those who posit that the soul is immortal is subverted, assuming that both soul and body contribute to the same end and ^C perish in Gehenna.

For Heracleon does not consider the soul to be immortal, but rather to be disposed for salvation, saying it is the perishable thing that puts on imperishability, and the mortal thing that puts on immortality, when its death has been swallowed up into victory. 73 Furthermore, concerning the text: “Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe,” ^D he says that this is spoken properly to such a person, who has a nature to be persuaded by works and sense-perception, and not to believe by reason. And he thinks that the passage: “Come down, before my child dies,” was spoken because death is the end of the Law, namely, the Law killing because of sins. Therefore, he says, before the son dies completely in accordance with sins, the father needs the only Savior, in order that He might help the son, that is, such a nature.

In addition to these points, he interprets the saying: “Thy son liveth,” as having been spoken by the Savior with humility, since He did not say: “Let him live,” nor did He show that He Himself had provided the life. He says, however, that having descended to the sufferer, and having healed him from the illness—that is, from sins—and having made him alive through forgiveness, He said: “Thy son liveth.” And he adds to the passage: “The man believed,” that the Creator is also easily persuaded, in that he is able... [index: entries preserved]

to cure even when not present: and he interpreted the nobleman’s servants as the angels of the Creator of the world, reporting to them with the words: “Thy son liveth,” that he was doing well and correctly, no longer acting in ways alien to himself; and for this reason, he thinks the servants report to the nobleman things that pertain to the salvation of the son, and he imagines that the angels are the first to see the actions of the people in the world, to see if they are living their lives strongly and sincerely ^A from the time the Savior arrived. Furthermore, he says that through the seventh hour the nature of the one who was healed is designated. Finally: “He himself believed, and his whole house,” he interpreted as being said of the angelic order, and of the men who were more closely related to him. He says that it is a matter of inquiry regarding certain angels, whether they will be saved or not, namely those who descended to the daughters of men. Moreover, he thinks the perdition of the men of the Creator of the world is declared in this saying: “The children of the kingdom shall go out into the outer darkness,” and that Isaiah prophesied regarding these: “I have begotten and raised up children; but they have rejected me”; whom he calls strange children, and a wicked and lawless seed, and a vine that has produced thorns. And these are the commentaries of Heracleon, which, having been stated more boldly and impiously, ought to have been ^B demonstrated with much preparation, if indeed they were true. But I do not know how he also doubts the immortality of the soul, since he has not explained how many significations there are of the word “death.” For it was necessary to look at the signification with consideration and diligence; and whether, according to all the significations, the soul is mortal or not: for if, because the soul is capable of sin, the soul that sins itself dies, we also say that in this way it is mortal; but if he considers death to be its complete dissolution and annihilation, we will not admit it, not even in thought being able to see a mortal substance passing into an immortal one, and a corruptible nature into that which is incorruptible: for this is just as if we were to say that something passes from a body into an incorporeal thing; as if there were some common subject for the nature of bodies and of incorporeal things: which remains, just as those who are skilled in these matters say that the material element remains, while the qualities pass over into incorruptibility. ^C But it is not the same thing for a corruptible nature to put on incorruption, and for a corruptible nature to pass into incorruption. The same things must also be said concerning a mortal nature, which is not changed into immortality, but puts it on. Furthermore, since he thought that the animal soul believes through works and sense perception, but not through reason, let us ask him concerning Paul, of what nature he was: for if he was of a spiritual nature, how did he believe through the astonishing manifestation? And if he could not believe in any other way than through the astonishing manifestation, it follows according to them that he himself was also animal. How, then, is it impious to see the angels of the Creator of the world ^D as those who see the strength and sincerity of the conduct of those who have been improved by the power of the Savior, and who — along with the Savior and the angels — do not fail to see the nature of the one who was healed, and who is no longer acting in a way that is alien to his own nature? And for this reason he considers the report to the nobleman to be about the salvation of the son; since he thinks the angels are the first to see the actions of the men in the world, to see if they are living their lives strongly and sincerely from the time of the Savior’s coming. He says further, regarding the seventh hour, that the nature of the one healed is characterized by the hour. Above all: “He himself believed, and his whole house,” he interpreted as having been said of the angelic order, and of men who were more familiar to him. He says it is a matter of investigation whether certain angels will be saved, those who descended to the daughters of men. And he thinks that the destruction of the men of the Creator is indicated in the passage: “The children of the kingdom shall go out into the outer darkness,” and that Isaiah prophesied about these: “I begat sons and exalted them; but they have rejected me,” whom he calls strange sons, and an evil and lawless seed, and a vine that has produced thorns. And these are the commentaries of Heracleon, which, having been spoken more audaciously and impiously, ought to have been proven with much apparatus, if they were true. But I do not know how he even doubts the immortality of the soul, since he has not set forth how many significations there are from the word “death.” For one had to see the meaning with consideration and diligence; and whether, according to all the significations, the soul is mortal or not: for if, because the soul can sin, the soul that sins dies itself, we also say that it is mortal in this way: but if he thinks death is its complete dissolution and annihilation, we will not admit it, not even being able to view in our minds a mortal substance changing into an immortal one, and a corruptible nature into that which is incorruptible: for this is the same as saying that something passes from a body into an incorporeal thing, as if there were any common subject of the nature of bodies and of incorporeal things; which remains, just as those expert in these matters say the material part remains, while the qualities change into incorruptibility. But it is not the same thing for the corruptible nature to put on incorruption, and for the corruptible nature to change into incorruption. The same must also be said concerning the mortal nature, which does not change into immortality, but puts it on. Further, since he thought that the animal soul believes through works and sense, but not through reason, let us ask him about Paul, whose nature he was of: for if he were of a spiritual nature, how did he believe through an astonishing manifestation? And if he could not believe otherwise than through an astonishing manifestation, it follows according to them that he too is animal. And how is it impious for the angels of the Creator to behold the strength and sincerity of the conduct of those who have been improved by the power of the Savior, and by the

^A spiritual nature, how did he believe through a miraculous apparition? But if he could not believe otherwise than through a miraculous apparition, it follows, according to their opinion, that even he himself was animal. But how is it not impious, and contrary to the clear reason regarding the Maker of the world, that his angels should have seen, even before the Maker of the world himself, the sound and sincere way of life of those who, because of the power of the Savior, had become better, against the Scripture which says: "Shall a man be hidden in secret places, and I shall not see him?" and: "The Lord searching the reins and hearts"; and: "The Lord knowing the thoughts of men, that they are vain?" How also does he preserve that saying: "Who sees all things before their birth," especially if the nature of the one healed, designated by the number of the hour, be the nature of the medicine made by a number which is accommodated to rest? But what is written because of the corruption of those who are animals, at the end of the things which we have expounded as having been said by Him, is an ambiguity of the one using it, and one introducing another, a fourth nature, which he himself does not approve.

60. "And Jesus again did a second sign, having come from Judea into Galilee." ^B This text is ambiguous; for it has such a significance, as if Jesus did two signs when He was coming from Judea into Galilee, of which the one concerning the son of the nobleman is the second; for since there were two signs which Jesus did in Galilee, He did the second, having come from Judea into Galilee; and this is the accepted and true way; for He did not do the first when He was arriving from Judea into Galilee; but the first is that concerning the changing of water into wine, which happened on the next day; which was also the cause that Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, having inquired where He stayed, remained with the Lord about the tenth hour of the day; for it is written: "On the next day He desired to go forth into Galilee, and ^C finds Philip." Behold then the economy, if we can understand it, in that the evangelist also noted that this was the second sign which took place, when the Lord had descended from Judea into Galilee. We said, however, in the preceding, that the two arrivals of our Savior into Cana can be taken as symbols of His two arrivals upon the earth: which earth, because it has been made the possession of Him who received all power, as in heaven so on earth, was for that reason called Cana. In the first arrival, therefore, after the washing, He gladdens us dining with Him, even granting us to drink of the wine of His power, which was water when it was drawn before; but it became wine, when Jesus changed it. For truly, before Jesus, the Scripture was water; but as soon as Jesus came, it became wine for us. By the second arrival, however, He delivers from the fever, at the time of the judgment, which was entrusted to Him by God that He might judge, delivering from the fever and per- ^D

entirely healing the king’s son, whether he be Abraham or some prince called a king. And this is by way of an account passing over the previous ones; but since we must be mindful of them, it should be said that it is possible for all his creation to understand this twofold coming. You will observe whether one should call the first coming the primary one and the second the following one, so that ^A in the first, those who have received Him may rejoice, while in the second, those who did not wish to drink of His wine beforehand may be delivered from every disease and from the fiery darts of the enemy. And the first miracle is indeed undivided, for in Cana he who turns the water into wine is present, and those who drink; but the second miracle has a certain separation: for the sick king’s son was not where Jesus was; for He was not in Cana, but in Capharnaum; and the word of power goes forth from Cana, for “Thy son liveth” was said in Cana, but the work of the word comes to pass in Capharnaum; for there the sick king’s son was ^B healed by the word of Jesus at the seventh hour; and we find this one healed by the word—when Jesus was not thought to be present with him—as also the centurion’s servant. For when He was far from him, the Lord does not go to the house of the centurion, who said, “Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof, but only speak the word and my servant shall be healed”; for which reason He says to him: “Go; and as thou hast believed, so let it be done unto thee.” We have also observed that both were sick in Capharnaum, namely the king’s son and the centurion’s servant. And Peter’s mother-in-law ^C also, being prostrate, was suffering from fever in Capharnaum, whose hand He touched and healed her, and she, having been raised up, ministered unto Him. And these were healed in Capharnaum during the day: the king’s son at the seventh hour, but the centurion’s servant and Peter’s mother-in-law before the evening. “And when the evening was come,” according to Matthew, “they brought unto Him in Capharnaum many that were possessed with demons, and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick.” Therefore, some are healed by Jesus more slowly, and others more quickly; for those in the evening are healed more slowly, since they are inferior—for they are ^D possessed by demons and are sick—to those healed during the day. We must strive to collect the places where those who were in need of healing were found, and we must note in what places other signs occurred, and not those concerning the sick; as in Samaria the sign was that, “Thou hast had five husbands, and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband”; and therefore, when the woman was amazed, she said, “I perceive that Thou art a prophet,” and she says to the citizens:

^A “Come, see a man who told me all things that I did; is this perhaps the Christ?” We must also observe His words, and where, and why, and upon what deeds they are spoken; for only by such observations and examinations of the proofs will you find by degrees the fruits of your labors, the blessing mentioned in the Psalms saying: “You shall eat the fruits of your labors.”

Furthermore, concerning the statement, ^B “This second sign Jesus performed again,” it must also be said that nowhere are prodigies (88) named alone; for if they are mentioned anywhere, they are written down along with signs, as when it says, “Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe,” yet very often signs are found without wonders (89), just as it is now. And one must inquire whether signs and wonders have any difference between themselves; I think that those powers which are paradoxical and prodigious—insofar as they are paradoxes, and exceed custom, and are admirable, and occur above human capacity—are called wonders (prodigia), whereas those that signify something other than what is being done are called signs (σημεῖα). For this reason, we find the name of “sign” even in things that are not paradoxical; that is to say, regarding the “sign” (90), God speaks in these words: ^C “Every male among you shall be circumcised, and you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be for a sign of the Covenant between me and you.” But nowhere are wonders named alone; since there is nothing paradoxical happening in Scripture that is not also a sign and symbol of something else beyond what is sensibly manifested; for if something prodigious had occurred that was not a symbol of something else, it would have been written that Jesus, or, let us say, Moses, or one of the saints, had performed this wonder.

When, therefore, we are taught by Scripture that we must seek that of which the occurrence is a sign, it is said: “This second sign Jesus performed again”; but when the royal official is reproved as one who would not believe ^D without seeing paradoxes, it is no longer said: “Unless you see signs, you will not believe”—for the signs that occur do not invite to belief insofar as they are signs, if it happens that the sign is not also a wonder—but it is said: “Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe,” for those of you who believe because of the wonder, while we, besides this, also offer honor to Him because of that of which it is a sign.

You will inquire concerning the seventy-seventh Psalm: “As He placed His signs in Egypt, and His wonders in the field of Zoan,” whether signs and wonders differ in their subject, or are the same; whether, insofar as they are signs, they occurred in Egypt, when Egypt itself is reduced to certain intelligible realities; or whether, insofar as they are wonders, they occurred in...